Planning Regulations

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to review the procedure for consultations on amendments to planning regulations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, like all government departments, is committed to carrying out a full public consultation on proposed new policies and regulations, as outlined in the code of practice on consultation published by the Cabinet Office. The code was revised in 2004 and at present there are no plans to amend it.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is he aware of a recent consultation carried out by the ODPM on antennae, in which overwhelming support was received for one option which the Government later said was not technically feasible? Can he explain why the Government went out to consultation and put forward an option that was not feasible in the first place? Does he not agree that that is the sort of cavalier attitude to consultation that brings the whole process into disrepute?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a fair point about consultation, but there are mitigating circumstances, which I shall endeavour to explain to your Lordships' House. I hope to get a warm and reasonable response in the circumstances, it being close to Christmas.
	The no-change option—option 1—received 96 responses in support, which was 29 per cent of the total, while the limited change option—option 2—received 88 responses in support, which was 27 per cent. So we are talking about a 2 per cent difference. The department took the reasonable view that, under the circumstances, as it simply could not do option 1, it was not unreasonable to move to option 2. In formulating the final policy, it took reasonable account of the significant proportion of respondents who did not want change at all.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us feel still that there is room for a lot of improvement in planning consultations in the sense that they take far too long? Many planning decisions take 12 months before we know exactly where we are going after we submit an application. Could those applications not be sped up?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister takes this subject extremely seriously. For that reason, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 was amended to improve consultation. Local authorities now have to make a statement of "community involvement" in the local development framework. We take the issue very seriously. Having been the leader of a council, I certainly understand the frustrations that local residents have experienced with the planning process. The Deputy Prime Minister is well seized of that issue too.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the time that planning applications take has just been referred to. Will the Minister comment on the desperate shortage of planners in local authorities? Local authorities cannot recruit them; it is very difficult indeed. The problem was compounded by the press reports a fortnight or so ago, before the Chancellor's pre-Budget speech, that there might be further planning legislation. Can the Minister confirm or deny that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would not be right for me to speculate about future legislative programmes. On the noble Lord's first point, there have historically been shortages of planning officers. With his background in local government, perhaps the noble Lord would agree, however, that the planning process has improved and speeded up in the past three years. The period between applications being submitted and their consideration is shorter. That is an impressive feature of how local government has improved.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, does that apply to wind turbine applications? The delay in putting up wind turbines is a constant problem, which must affect the Government's programme on the environment. There is also a delay in putting up broadband masts in the hill and upland areas of the countryside. If those areas are to develop, they require access to broadband.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is one of those areas where it is probably fairest to say that there is a balance to be struck. Clearly, many residents object to wind turbines and masts being erected in areas of outstanding natural beauty and attractive landscapes. Equally, we need to develop sustainable energy policies and give life to them. On balance, we probably get it about right, but I can understand some of the frustrations that people experience.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the draft guidance on the housing needs assessments for Gypsies and Travellers has been out for consultation for many months, and that the process of determining the needs of Gypsies and Travellers, and thus the implementation of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, is being held up?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that a detailed consultation is being conducted. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the way in which he pursues this issue. I think that, like me, he would like to see progress made on it, but it is a policy area where we have to tread very delicately around the various issues, because it is quite complex.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, while declaring my interest as a landlord, I warmly welcome the news from the Minister of the acceleration in the planning process in the light of my experience of meeting homeless families who are living in temporary accommodation. We are all worried about the 100,000 families or more now in such accommodation. I warmly welcome his news on that basis.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always grateful to receive warm welcomes. It is a very pleasant experience in your Lordships' House.

Benefit Payments: Fraud and Error

Viscount Ullswater: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the recent National Audit Office report on the benefit system which estimated that £2.6 billion is lost through fraud and errors.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government welcome the National Audit Office report. We are making progress in the fight against benefit fraud, but we are not complacent. There is more to be done to continue to drive fraud and error out of the system.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is it not a fact, as this report makes clear, that the gradual introduction of new benefits and the constant flow of changes have created a tangle of fiendish complexity? When will the Chancellor learn that benefits should be easy to understand, apply for and administer so that this scandalous amount of money lost through fraud and error can be properly allocated to those who are in genuine need?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the aim should always be to reduce complexity, and that is the Government's aim, but there is always a balance between responding to the needs of individual clients and customers and administrative simplicity. Of course we are committed to reducing complexity. We have reduced the number of forms, and we are reducing the number of information leaflets for our customers. The introduction of contact centres means that many clients can actually process forms over the phone, helped by members of staff from my department. Progress is being made, but there is still some way to go.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this report is in some senses disappointing? It points out that complexity can indeed ensure and facilitate serious fraud, but on the other hand it says that simplicity may not be possible or desirable. As far as I can see—and perhaps he can reassure us—the only recommendation is that complexity on a regular basis should be studied. I assume the department is doing that.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we always keep these matters under review, and will continue to do so. To be fair, although it is not for me to defend the National Audit Office, it seems to me that it has come to a pretty reasonable view. As I have already stated: yes, we want to reduce complexity, but doing so means you then have hard and fast rules that many clients will consider to be unfair. Over the years the rules are changed to make them more sensitive. As you do that, however, they become more complex, and there are then issues for staff in administering those schemes. This matter will continue to be addressed. We will do what we can to reduce complexity, but we also have to ensure that the benefit rules are fair as well.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can I ask the Minister—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that £220 million was lost last year through errors in the complex pension credit alone? I hope that he is, since the figure comes from a report published by his own department last Thursday. Hopelessly complicated credit like that is not reaching 1.7 million people and it is wide open to errors. How much longer will the Government continue to treat pensioners as second-class citizens by making them claim what should be theirs by right?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we must not anticipate the conclusions of the Government's consideration of the Turner commission report on pensions. It is all very well to have a go at pension credit, but it has enabled thousands of older people to get out of poverty. I continually come across older people who benefit enormously. As for error, we are of course committed to doing everything that we can to reduce it. There are programmes for staff training and for targeting those offices where the figures are disappointing. But in taking forward the debate on the pension commission report, we must not underestimate the good that pension credit has achieved.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how much of the problem is due to a complete mess-up in the systems employed by the Department for Work and Pensions—much like the systems employed throughout government? When will there be joined-up government in looking at IT systems overall?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are mechanisms in place which enable people responsible for developing IT systems to compare and draw on good practice. The Government's gateway review ensures that departments who progress these schemes are subject to rigorous scrutiny. While problems are inevitable when introducing new systems, the fact is that my department's performance is improving enormously. The result is that through the use of contact centres, customers are able to get through to a service that can be delivered over the phone rather than having to come into Jobcentre Plus offices.

Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that for many of us the change of attitude, particularly within the DWP, has meant that it is far easier for many people to obtain benefits than ever before—or, certainly, before 1997? Moreover, instead of crocodile tears about fraud and incompetence, should we not worry about the larger problem of those who are deterred from claiming? It is not all down to complexity; old-fashioned social attitudes are denying these people their entitlement to the decent benefits which the Government are now providing.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend puts it well; I find it difficult to disagree. Surely, the question is one of rights and responsibilities. We must ensure that customers who are entitled to benefits get them in as straightforward a way as possible. Much of my department's work is designed to communicate that, and the work we have put into reducing the complexity of application forms also derives from that. My noble friend is also right that this Government have done much more than the previous one to deal with fraud and error.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, for many years the Comptroller and Auditor-General has qualified his opinion of the DWP's accounts because of unacceptable levels of fraud and error. Is it not therefore surprising that the latest PSA targets for the department have nothing whatever about tackling fraud and error?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, PSA targets have been set for the department to reduce fraud and error. I am sorry to say that the noble Baroness is quite wrong. In terms of the department's record, I can inform your Lordships that in the spending review of 2004, the PSA 10 targets relate to reductions in fraud and error concerning income support and jobseeker's allowance.
	I regret that the accounts have been qualified. However, I would point out that they have been qualified for 15 years, going back into the Conservative government's performance.

Lord Chan: My Lords, what proportion of these frauds and errors relate to those benefits that require NHS letters of recommendation? I should have thought that the system in place would have reduced such error and fraud.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is difficult for me to answer that. Letters from doctors are required for many benefits. I am sure that the noble Lord is referring particularly to incapacity benefit, which is an issue. He will know that we will shortly be bringing forward a Green Paper on welfare reform, part of which will encompass the relationship with GPs and the health service because, clearly, they have an important role to play.

High Hedges

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How effective the provisions of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 concerning high hedges have been since its implementation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have undertaken no formal review or assessment of how the provisions of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 concerning high hedges are working. That part of the 2003 Act came into operation only in June 2005, so it is too soon to draw firm conclusions on its effectiveness. However, informal feedback suggests that the legislation is helping to end the misery caused by overgrown hedges, and many disputes are being resolved voluntarily.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I pay tribute to him, to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for helping to get this legislation. It means a great deal to many people. However, a major problem has arisen in the advice and guidelines given out by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; it all hinges on the word "remove" in the legislation. Councils are naturally frightened that they will be liable if a hedge dies, because they have been told that if it dies that is the same as removing it. Is the Minister aware that there are no regulations that allow councils to implement an order to reduce a hedge in phases? Should new regulations be considered, because councils are frightened to do anything where they will personally carry a liability? While most people are thrilled with the legislation, some are worried about what is happening. Can the Minister give me any hope in that regard?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that the problem is necessarily susceptible to regulation. The noble Baroness raises an understandable concern. Paragraph 624 of the ODPM guidance, High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure, offers very useful advice. It says:
	"Councils are, therefore, advised to obtain arboricultural input when framing the requirements of a remedial notice".
	I believe it is saying that if it is better and more intelligent to reduce the height of the hedge in phases, according to the growing season, that is a good way to act. By taking arboricultural advice they will probably be well protected.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, apparently if a council wishes to reduce the height of a hedge—I understand the advice is that not more than one-third should be reduced—the biggest hedges are the ones most caught in this problem. Can the Minister see a way whereby councils can charge only once? People are being charged £650 to go to the council to have one-third removed and they might have to go back to the council three times, whereas if a council could impose the order at the outset, only one fee would be charged, and the council could supervise the procedure.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is up to the local authority to determine its own fees. The noble Baroness is right to say that some local authorities, such as, I think, Sevenoaks, have been reported as charging £650. That local authority has made a local judgment and it is a matter for local authorities to determine. However, it is important that, where there are such problems, they should be drawn to the attention of the ODPM because, as yet, we have not encountered any profound problems with the operation of the legislation.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how fast the fastest-growing anti-social hedge grows in a year?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord obviously does not know that, as we speak, we have an armed snatch squad of inspectors touring up and down the country looking for these fast-growing leylandii cypress, and they are due to report back shortly.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we know only too well of the bitterness, anger and resentment that disputes of that nature can cause between neighbours and how they can sour relationships for years, if not decades. Can the Minister therefore confirm that legislation will be used to settle one of the longest and worst examples of this type of dispute—that is, of course, the one between Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lord, lots of good answers are being suggested to me, but it is probably best that I hold fire. However, I think that the Government are working perfectly well at the top.

Torture

Lord Clinton-Davis: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the House of Lords judgment in A and others v the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture, given on 8 December.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government welcome the clarity that their Lordships' judgment has brought to this important and difficult issue. We have consistently condemned torture. It has never been our intention to present to court evidence which we believe to have been obtained by torture, and the effect of the judgment is to replace this policy with an exclusionary rule of law. SIAC must exclude evidence if it is established on the balance of probabilities that it was obtained by torture.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply—not without time. Are the Government able to say unequivocally that, apart from condemning the policy of torture, they will do everything to undermine and condemn it? Will they also co-operate fully with the Chief Constable of Manchester regarding his inquiries into the alleged flights by the United States into the UK?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to endorse everything that my noble friend has said about our total condemnation of torture. I am not aware of the Chief Constable of Manchester's inquiry and I will write to him in relation to that matter.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Law Lords decided by a majority of four to three that evidence would be excluded only if the defendant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that that evidence was obtained by torture. Since for obvious reasons that will be extremely difficult to prove, does this not mean that in future a good deal of evidence will be heard that is in fact obtained by torture?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not believe that is so. In the leading judgment, which was of course made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, he puts the position very succinctly. Of course, if there is still a question as to whether evidence might have been obtained by torture, that would go to weight and he rightly expressed the view that one would have to be cautious about it.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that the UK participated at a meeting on closer collaboration on, among other matters, rendition procedures, held in Athens in 2003 and recorded in a document which was sent to the Home Office entitled New Transatlantic Agenda, EU-US meeting on Justice and Home Affairs? Does the Minister agree that such collaboration is contrary to the Law Lords' ruling of last week, and certainly contrary to the UK's obligations to avoid illegal transfer of individuals and their possible torture?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not understand that question. If the noble Baroness is asking whether the EU and US consult on and talk about these issues, then of course it is right. But we have made it absolutely clear that this Government will do only that which is consistent with their international and other obligations, and will at all stages act lawfully within the meaning of our law and international law. That is something of which we can be proud.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza; I had not appreciated that she had risen to speak. I would always yield to her on this issue, and she is a Cross-Bencher. I want to pursue a slightly different aspect of the question that she raised. We have a special relationship with the United States and rendition is now very much a live issue in Congress, where there has been a lot of debate about it. Given that, can the Minister assure the House that, using our own channels to the United States, we will make it absolutely clear that we oppose rendition and ask it to review its policy on that matter?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Well, my Lords, it depends on what the noble Baroness means by rendition. If she means improper use for torture, then absolutely, and we were very warmed by the United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she said:
	"The United States has respected—and will continue to respect—the sovereignty of other countries. The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured".
	That was a clear statement that we very much welcomed, and that endorsed our position in terms of the total unacceptability of the use of torture in any circumstances.

Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend say, for those of us who are not lawyers, whether it is not perfectly obvious that something obtained under torture simply is not evidence and could not be construed as evidence in any meaningful sense? Why then does the burden of demonstrating various statements not fall on the prosecution? Is it not obliged to satisfy itself that it has fully checked everything that it puts forward as evidence, according to an absence of torture criterion?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is always difficult to explain these issues in detail from the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I should have said that I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about his synopsis of what the Law Lords said in their judgment. But they were dealing with the circumstances in which such evidence can come in, the basis on which the burden of proof would be satisfied, and what caution should be used when such evidence is brought into court. We respectfully suggest that the leading judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is absolutely right and is balanced. I commend to the House paragraph 118 on page 66 of the judgment, because it is succinct and puts the case as it should be put.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, if it emerged that people were being transported via British territory to places abroad where they could be tortured, would not a crime have been committed under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? What steps would the Government take to increase the capacity of the Metropolitan Police to deal with those offences, considering that only two officers are allocated to those duties?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question, not least because we have trawled the records and your Lordships will be aware of a statement made by my right honourable friend Jack Straw in relation to rendition. We have found no cases where any impropriety has taken place.

Lord Judd: My Lords, in view of some of the reported statements in recent times which could have been interpreted as being a trifle equivocal on this matter, will my noble friend assure the House that all those responsible for security policy in this country understand the uncompromising, commendable and altogether laudable stand of the Government on this issue?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that that is correct.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 14, Schedule 1, Clauses 15 to 50, Schedule 2, Clauses 51 to 58, Schedule 3, Clauses 59 to 61.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: moved Amendment No. 132:
	After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
	"COUNTER-TERRORIST POWERS
	(1) Part V of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (counter-terrorist powers) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 44 (authorisations)—
	(a) in subsection (3), for the words after "if" to the end substitute "the person giving it reasonably believes it to be necessary for the prevention of acts of terrorism";
	(b) after subsection (3) insert—
	"(3A) The area or place specified in the authorisation, within which the power conferred by the authorisation may be exercised, must be no greater than is proportionate to the nature of the specific threat."; .
	(c) in subsection (4)—
	(i) after "given" insert "for a period specified in the authorisation not exceeding 24 hours";
	(ii) in paragraphs (a) to (d), in each case omit the words "the whole or";
	(d) in subsections (4A), (4B) and (4BA), after "given" insert "for a period specified in the authorisation not exceeding 24 hours";
	(e) after subsection (4C) insert—
	"(4D) An authorisation may be given for a period specified in the authorisation not exceeding 28 days by the Secretary of State, who must lay the authorisation before both Houses of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.";
	(f) after subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) An authorisation must be publicised within 7 days of it being given.
	(7) Publicity under subsection (6) above shall be effected in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the information to the attention of the public."
	(3) In section 46 (duration of authorisation)—
	(a) for subsection (1) substitute—
	"(1) Where an authorisation has been given by a person listed in section 44(4), if it is considered by the person who gave the authorisation, or a person who could have given it, that it is necessary to do so having regard to the nature of the specific threat of terrorism, he may apply to the High Court judge for an order under this section that the authorisation shall be renewed for a further period not exceeding 24 hours.";
	(b) for subsection (2) substitute—
	"(2) A High Court judge may grant an application under subsection (1) if satisfied that it is necessary for the prevention of acts of terrorism for the authorisation to be renewed for a further period not exceeding 24 hours.";
	(c) for subsection (3) substitute—
	"(3) Where an authorisation has been given by a person listed in section 44(4), the person who gives the authorisation, or applies for renewal under subsection (1), shall inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours.";
	(d) omit subsections (4), (5) and (7)."

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: The new clause relates to counter-terrorist powers and would amend Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 44 permits a police officer, within an authorised area, to stop and search an individual without any need to have a reasonable suspicion of unlawful behaviour. The officer can detain the individual for the duration of that search and, if an individual refuses to allow an officer to search him or attempts to leave while being detained, he will be guilty of an offence. The requirement of reasonable suspicion provides a fundamental safeguard against the arbitrary and discriminatory use of police powers that can be both intrusive and intimidatory. The requirement limits the circumstances in which an officer can exercise the power and provides the subject with a standard against which the lawfulness of the search can be tested.
	Over the years, police powers to stop and search have caused extreme tension between the police and the community, particularly in relation to disproportionate use against ethnic minorities. That has occurred even when the standard of reasonable suspicion has been in place. When that standard is removed, the potential for abuse is massively increased. I emphasise that I accept that, in a state of emergency, exceptional powers may be necessary. What concerns me and others—for example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Liberty, and other organisations concerned with civil liberties and justice—is the way in which Section 44 is being used. At the DSEi arms fair in Docklands in September 2003, police officers used Section 44 to stop and search large numbers of peaceful protestors. The Metropolitan Police originally denied that that was happening but was forced to change its stance when evidence came to light.
	The organisation Liberty issued judicial review proceedings against the Met claiming that the use of Section 44 against the peace protestors was unlawful because it was not being used to combat terrorism but rather to assist public order policing. In addition, the legislation itself was challenged as being incompatible with European convention rights since it leads inevitably to arbitrary use. The litigation is currently travelling to the House of Lords, and the Appellate Committee will consider the challenge in January 2006.
	In the course of the Liberty proceedings, it was discovered that the entire Greater London area has been subject to a rolling Section 44 authorisation since February 2001—before 9/11. That effectively changes the law on stop and search for a significant proportion of the population indefinitely. The secrecy of the way in which authorisations have been given is unjustified and, in the light of the acknowledged aim of creating a hostile environment for potential terrorists, is in fact having the opposite effect.
	Since the arms fair incident, there have been several other occasions on which the flaws in Section 44 have been highlighted. The Home Office figures on stop and search show that a disproportionate number of minority ethnic individuals, particularly Asians, have been stopped and searched under Section 44. In 2002 to 2003, the number of Asians subject to stop and search under this section rose by 300 per cent. On the previous occasion the noble Baroness said that that had gone down slightly in the following year. However, a survey conducted by the BBC suggests that there has been a significant increase since 7 July this year, with many police forces saying that in the months since that date they have exercised stop and search powers under Section 44 on a basis three times greater than in the whole of the previous year.
	In the wake of the 7 July bombings, two incidents have once again drawn attention to the inherent risk of granting police powers without safeguards. The chief constable of the British Transport Police remarked publicly that his police officers, when exercising their Section 44 powers, would not waste their time searching white old ladies but would concentrate on young Asian men. Since those remarks, the British Transport Police has met the organisation Liberty and revised its guidance to officers to take out references to particular ethnic groups. But an individual officer remains free to exercise stop and search powers on the basis of racial stereotyping without the protection of the "reasonable suspicion" standard.
	At the Labour Party conference in Brighton, Mr Walter Wolfgang was detained but not searched by a police officer purporting to use his powers under Section 44—a section that allows only a search of an individual and detention for that purpose. Mr Wolfgang has publicly stated that he believes that officers were stopping and searching only those displaying controversial political views. It is questionable whether opposing the Government's foreign policy on the war in Iraq can be said to be controversial. Mr Wolfgang has since received a formal public apology and an acknowledgement that the police officer acted wrongly, and the Sussex constabulary has revised its guidance to officers. Nevertheless the incident highlights the way in which extraordinary police powers can be abused if they are not carefully monitored.
	Like Liberty, I believe that a stop and search power that does not require reasonable suspicion should be used only in a genuinely blanket or random way. Since an officer already has the power to stop and search an individual on the basis of reasonable suspicion—under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000—any use of Section 44 on the basis of suspicion must be triggered by a standard that is lower than reasonable. In other words Section 44 is being used to allow officers to stop and search on the basis of unreasonable suspicion, which is a recipe for discriminatory use.
	There are only two appropriate ways to use the power—I do not put my suggestions in order of preference. First, we should designate a limited area for a limited time and then search every individual in that area. If, for example, the limited area was Downing Street because President Bush was visiting, anyone in that area of Whitehall wanting to pass through could be stopped and searched indiscriminately and it would apply to everybody. If everyone was treated exactly the same there could be no scope for discrimination or arbitrariness. Secondly, if that is not possible because of lack of resources or some other genuine reason, we should stop and search on a truly random basis, such as every fifth person or every tenth vehicle passing a particular point or officer.
	While it is difficult to legislate for that approach, the proposed amendment to Section 44 would place limits on the section's use and would prevent the abuses of power that happen now. The amendment would change the standard for authorisation of the use of Section 44 from being considered "expedient" for the purposes of preventing terrorism to being "reasonably believed to be necessary". It would change the basis for the authorisation. Secondly, it would reduce the area that can be covered by a Section 44 authorisation so that authorising an entire police area, for example, a county or the whole of Greater London, would no longer be straightforward. We would do that by introducing a proportionality test.
	Thirdly, the amendment introduces a two-tier process for making Section 44 authorisations. Police officers may give the authorisation but it will last only 24 hours, subject to a 24-hour extension by a High Court judge. If the authorisation is needed to last longer than 24 hours, it should go outside the police's remit, and the Secretary of State may authorise a period of up to 28 days, but that must be laid before both Houses of Parliament to provide accountability. Fourthly, the amendment introduces a requirement to publicise authorisations within seven days to allow individuals to know their rights and again to increase accountability.
	Finally, I want to quote something that was said by the Metropolitan Police Authority in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 8 July 2004. It said that it had been given "powerful evidence" that Section 44 was having a "hugely negative impact" on community relations, and added:
	"Section 44 powers do not appear to have proved an effective weapon against terrorism and may be used for other purposes, despite the explicit limitation expressed in the Act".
	The Metropolitan Police Authority went on:
	"It has increased the level of distrust of our police. It has created deeper racial and ethnic tensions against the police. It has trampled on the basic human rights of too many Londoners. It has cut off valuable sources of community information and intelligence. It has exacerbated community divisions and weakened social cohesion".
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights has noted mounting evidence that the powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 are being used disproportionately against members of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. It is for those reasons that I have placed the amendment before the Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue, which relates to Section 44. We think that Section 44 is merited and that it does exactly what it was intended to do inasmuch as stop and search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in the ongoing fight against terrorism. As part of a structured anti-terrorist strategy, the powers help to deter terrorist activity by creating a difficult environment for would-be terrorists to operate in. That deterrent effect means that there is a crucial difference between the powers under Section 44 and the other stop and search powers.
	An authorisation under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act gives the police the power to stop and search pedestrians, vehicles, drivers and passengers in the area specified in the authorisation. I remind my noble friend that those areas can be very limited indeed and can, if the need arises, be quite precise. An authorisation can be given only if it is considered expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. Authorisations are made by an officer of ACPO rank and must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours to remain valid after that period. The powers can be authorised in particular locations and for a particular period.
	The justification for authorising the use of the powers is intelligence-led and based on an assessment of the threat against the United Kingdom and how that transfers to potential targets within a force area. My noble friend's proposal would limit the use of those powers to instances where there is a "specific threat". Intelligence rarely allows such a defined threat to be identified. In our respectful submission, the police must be allowed to make informed and evidence-based assessments of where the powers are best utilised according to the information available.
	In 2004, the Home Office produced guidance for forces which requires any officer making an authorisation to set out in detail the evidence to support the authorisation and how that relates to the assessment of the terrorist threat. The guidance also states:
	"Special attention should be given to whether the powers are required across an entire force or whether a designated area, or indeed a number of designated areas, can be identified. Where powers are authorised force wide, the authorising officer should explain the reasons in detail for rejecting the option of a designated area and applying the powers more extensively".
	The decision to make an authorisation is an operational one for the chief officer concerned and it is appropriate that that remains the case. The power is, however, subject to considerable scrutiny. As well as requiring authorisation at senior officer level and Secretary of State confirmation for authorisations over 48 hours, any authorisation can be cancelled by the Secretary of State at any time. All authorisations are carefully considered and confirmed only if they are deemed a proportionate response to the threat. This system is entirely appropriate, giving as it does the operational discretion to the police and an executive decision to the Secretary of State, who remains answerable, ultimately, to the electorate.
	There is no requirement in the Terrorism Act for either the police or the Home Office to publicise authorisations under Section 44. To routinely and proactively identify areas that have such authorisations in place would identify areas where similar powers were not in place. This would assist terrorists in identifying areas where the powers were not in use and assist their planning of attacks in areas they considered more vulnerable. Some information about where the powers have become authorised will become available purely as a consequence of the powers being used. We recognise that communities play a vital role in combating terrorism, and the police will always seek to share as much information as possible with the public. However, a statutory requirement that does not take account of operational sensitivities is not a solution.
	We are undertaking work with the police to develop more detailed guidance on the circumstances in which Section 44 powers should be used, in order to increase consistency and reassure the public that the powers are used appropriately.
	It is never appropriate to stop and search a person purely on the basis of personal facts such as ethnicity. That would be both discriminatory and operationally na-ve. PACE code A states:
	"Officers must take particular care not to discriminate against members of minority ethnic groups in the exercise of these powers. There may be circumstances, however, where it is appropriate for officers to take account of a person's ethnic origin in selecting persons to be stopped in response to a specific terrorist threat (for example, some international terrorist groups are associated with particular ethnic identities)".
	This should be used only—we emphasise, only—as one of a range of factors, which must also be supported by available intelligence; for example, a person's behaviour, gender, age, and the vulnerability of the location. This is also consistent with the Home Office stop and search manual, which was published in April this year. Countering the terrorist threat and ensuring good community relations and involvement are interdependent. Appropriate consultation should be undertaken in those circumstances.
	We agree with my noble friend that the sensitivities about this are critical, the need to operate proportionately is essential and the powers must be exercised with integrity. We believe that the procedures we have in place deliver that. Stops and searches under Section 44 are subject to the same recording requirements as other stop and search powers. The joint Home Office, ACPO and APA guidance issued to the police service in April this year points to the role of the following: the police authority, in monitoring police stop and search data on a quarterly basis and providing a bridge with the communities they serve; the chief constable, in setting out a clear policy on the appropriate use of the powers, with an identified ACPO lead responsible for supervision and monitoring. That monitoring goes down the line, ultimately to the first-line supervising sergeants, who are responsible for ensuring that every record of a stop is examined and any anomalies pursued.
	The Government have also set up a delivery board and a community panel to report to Ministers, analysing the use of stop and search powers in relation to minority ethnic communities. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, for the sterling work he is doing in that regard.
	For those reasons, we do not believe that this is an appropriate amendment. I hope that in that light my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise to the Minister for the misunderstanding on our Benches about who would speak when.
	I shall start where the Minister began. The problem on stop and search powers is that a balance has to be struck. They are undoubtedly often a very effective weapon against terrorism and serious crime, as the Minister indicated, but on the other hand their use arouses a great deal of concern and often a considerable sense of threat and intimidation among people who, for one reason or another, feel particularly vulnerable to stop and search procedures.
	The noble Baroness will know that since the 7 July attacks there has been a substantial increase in the use of stop and search under Section 44. More people have been stopped and searched since then than in the whole of the preceding year. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, quoted the troubling evidence given by the Metropolitan Police Authority. It refers to the impact on attitudes and opinions particularly among minority communities, which the Committee should pay careful attention to. That is also borne out by the remarks of the most senior Muslim officer in the Metropolitan force, Mr Ghaffur, who indicated that stop and search was a double-edged weapon.
	The police must rely strongly on information from the minority communities. There is no better base for what the noble Baroness rightly referred to as intelligence-based policing. Yet if those communities are alienated—the evidence of the Metropolitan Police Authority was certainly that they were being increasingly alienated—that information and intelligence will not be forthcoming and the battle against terrorism will be weakened.
	The noble Baroness referred to PACE code A, which says that religious belief should not be a factor in determining the use and targeting of stop and search procedures. However, there is also now a requirement that the person stopped and searched must be informed by the police officer and that that should be recorded. Code G, which has recently come into force—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to it in a debate on 9 December—has an attractive aspect, saying that an arrest should take place only if the police officer is convinced of its necessity.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, specifically included a test of necessity, not a test of expediency, in her amendment. I therefore wonder whether the Minister might consider the appropriateness of that aspect of the amendment, part of which she obviously does not willingly accept. Will she consider whether the test of necessity fits better with code G than merely a test of expediency, which is much more open to criticism and to a belief that the police officer concerned may be prejudiced in the steps he has taken?
	The amendment also measures proportionality. The Minister eloquently defended the argument—as she usually does—about proportionality, but the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to the rolling authorisation under Section 44 for the whole of London over the past two years. It is hard to see how that could be described as proportionate. Is the whole of London really at risk in such as way as to justify stop and search powers over the whole city for such a long period?
	I respect the Minister's concern about getting the balance right, but part of the argument behind the amendment is that the balance is not quite right. The balance has drifted a little too far towards measures that allow stop and search over wide areas and long periods. Members of the Committee will be as aware as I am that the sense in London of our being under very close police surveillance is very different from that which obtains in many other cities. It is interesting that West Yorkshire Police, which might be considered to have a specific and difficult problem, given that several of the 7 July people came from that county, are very reluctant to use stop and search powers, specifically because they recognise their alienating effect on the community that they are obliged to police.
	I hope that the Minister will consider very carefully whether there cannot be some tightening up of the authorisation on such wide bases, both geographically and temporally, of current stop and search powers and whether that might not improve and increase the level of support and co-operation from all our communities as compared with the difficulties pointed to by the Metropolitan Police Authority and Commissioner Ghaffur.

Lord Hylton: British Transport Police has already been mentioned. It is clear that that police service is very much on the front line of counter-terrorism activity. It is very much to be commended for holding what it calls community engagement forums, where matters such as stop and search can be discussed in a reasonably informal way with some of those who have been affected. The chief constable pointed out at the most recent forum that Muslims were not being targeted for stop and search. He went on to say that there had been 22,000 stop and searches, but he did not specify over what period. The result was that there had been very few formal complaints. It is possible that those affected did not know they had a right to complain, and perhaps that should be more widely publicised.
	I have it on the authority of British Transport Police that a person stopped may be asked any question that the police officer wishes to put, but he does not have an obligation to reply. It is not an offence not to reply. Perhaps that could be made rather more widely known.
	Finally, will the Minister do all she can to ensure that guidance given to police officers, whatever force they belong to, emphasises the importance of having reasonable suspicion before stopping and searching somebody? This will not be possible in all cases, but it should, as far as possible, be the norm.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: As the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said, Section 44 can be an important weapon for combating terrorism, but not if it is a blunderbuss that is not aimed at any specific target at any particular time. When we hear that for a number years a rolling authorisation has covered the whole of the metropolitan area, it is clear that the focus of Section 44 powers has been lost.
	We have to look at the experience of the way in which the provision has been used. One has to agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland: the section can be confined to a particular location at a particular time; it is an operational decision so that it is a proportionate response to a terrorist threat that should be used with sensitivity and integrity. Those are marvellous sentiments, but the way in which the section has been used demonstrates that it is too loosely drafted. Its use of the word "expedient" in subsection (3) requires amendment in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has proposed. Instead of giving an authorisation where the person giving it considers it "expedient", the person should give it when he or she reasonably believes it to be necessary for the prevention of acts of terrorism.
	It is right that the noble Baroness's amendments go on to define more narrowly the place and time. In subsection (4), she suggests that, instead of the whole of a police area outside Northern Ireland—or the whole of the Metropolitan Police district, or the whole of the City of London and so on—the authorisation should relate to a part that is actually the subject of a terrorist threat. I do not accept the argument that by defining a particular part—and publicising that, so that everybody knows where it is—you therefore leave open other broad areas where Section 44 authorisation has not been obtained.
	For those reasons, we support the noble Baroness's amendment.

Lord Elton: I add a quick proviso to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has just said, which is that we are apparently moving fairly inexorably towards the enlargement of police areas. This Bill will no doubt be an Act in force when that happens. There will not be an early opportunity to amend it, and there will be great resistance to using parliamentary time to do so anyway. It should therefore be in a form which is fit for purpose when that change comes in, if it does.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I shall try to dispel the apparent consensus that we have heard, that we are all concerned about the rights of the suspected terrorists. Some of us are also concerned about the potential victims. When there are a large number of people concerned about their lives, limbs and future, who are in danger because of increasing terrorism—and we see that—it is important that the police have real, effective and genuine powers, not constrained by lawyers who very seldom get out and about, as I do, on the Underground and buses in London, and see the threat and the problems. There are many ordinary, law-abiding people, on the buses and trains and in their houses, who are concerned by potential threats. It is important that the Minister and the Government take account of those concerns, as well as, of course, the liberty and the rights of people who may be suspected by the police of acts of terrorism. I hope that the Minister will not believe that what she has heard from the Liberal Benches and pseudo-liberal Benches represents the feeling of the whole House.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I strongly support what has just been said.

Lord Kingsland: I have considerable sympathy with the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, about the way the current system operates. I suspect that the areas are rather wider than necessary, and that stop and search is sometimes used for purposes other than those set out in the legislation.
	Having said that, I am unable to support the noble Baroness's amendment. I say that with genuine reluctance because I often find myself supporting proposals that she has made. The way the noble Baroness has worded her amendment would leave it open to an individual—relatively frequently, if that individual was so inclined—to seek to judicially review the decision of the authorities when it came to seeking an authorisation.
	In my view, the nature of the terrorist threat that we face at the moment is such that the ability to judicially review the police in this area could lead them to hesitate in circumstances where their instincts tell them that something needed to be done. In the current circumstances that would be an undesirable consequence. It might lead to a situation in which the "nose", if I can put it that way, of an experienced policeman told him that a problem might arise; but, because of the way in which the noble Baroness has drafted the amendment, he would be constrained from following his instincts and disastrous consequences might ensue.
	So, although I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness's reasons for promoting the amendment, it would be, on balance, wrong for the Committee to accept it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should say to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that they should not misunderstand the Government's own concern about the way in which these powers should and must be used in order to maintain confidence in the exercise of them. It was for precisely that reason that we set up the stop and search action team, the delivery board and the community panel to report to Ministers. We were very conscious of the need for real, robust and appropriate procedures which would enable us to scrutinise what was being done and to alter practice and procedure if necessary.
	So the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about guidance is very much part of the work that we have undertaken with the assistance of the panel and the delivery board. We are working with ACPO and the National Centre for Policing Excellence on guidance which will include provisions on the role of community consultation and assessing the impact that the powers have on communities. This will include full co-operation with police authorities. So we understand the impact that this can have.
	However, taking up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—in answer, in part, to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—about necessity, their concerns are also very real and we have to deal with them. That is the reality now. I must, with respect, advocate a great deal of caution when my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws refers to the "whole of London". We are very clear that we never state the area to which the Section 44 order applies. I reiterate what I said earlier: in identifying those areas to which Section 44 applies, we take into account the threat, the assessment made, the location and the reasons for it. Each Section 44 application has to justify why that area is to be identified for the use of Section 44. Every single area goes into that type of critical assessment by a Minister—usually the Home Secretary or the Minister identified. I have had the onerous burden of looking at Section 44 applications. I can assure the Committee that each application is scrutinised, and the evidence adduced to support it is looked at, before a ministerial decision is made as to the propriety and proportionality of what is being requested. Because I cannot from the Dispatch Box answer the assertions that are made, noble Lords should not assume that those assertions are necessarily correct. I can assure the Committee that the orders are proportionate and appropriate. The Government have been very clear about that.
	We have to remember also that Section 44 exists to deter and disrupt. It does not necessarily exist simply because there is a specific threat against a specific person on a specific date at a specific place. Assessments of vulnerability and the nature of the threat are made. Relying on that assessment, decisions on whether a Section 44 order is merited are made. If it is no longer merited, the Secretary of State, or a Minister acting on his behalf, has an opportunity not to confirm that order. If an order is not confirmed, it lapses within 48 hours. If it comes to the attention of the Minister within 48 hours—before that ordinary period has elapsed—and the Minister disagrees with it, we can discharge that order on behalf of the Home Secretary. Noble Lords need to be conscious of the rigour which is adopted in relation to these orders.
	I should also make it plain that the stop-and-search statistics will of course be affected by the areas in which Section 44 operates. Those areas will differ in complexion and the nature of the population. What may appear as disproportionate in national statistics may be entirely proportionate when one looks at the area to which the Section 44 order applied. I can assure the Committee that these issues will continue to be scrutinised.
	I accept the concern that has been raised by the noble Baroness, but I assure the Committee that Section 44 has within it sufficient flexibility both to keep our country safe and to make sure that it is not used in a way that disadvantages our civil liberties. That balance is maintained in the procedure which now exists pursuant to Section 44.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: How many times has an authorisation been discharged within the 48-hour period?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Even if I had the figures, I would not be in a position to tell the noble Lord.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I thank the Minister for her description of the powers and how they are exercised. When I said that the whole of the metropolitan area of London had been subject to a rolling authorisation by the Home Secretary for the use of these extended powers, and that that had been the case for two years, I understood that that had been indicated to the High Court when a challenge was made in the arms fair case. If that is wrong, I would be grateful to receive information from the Minister on how it is so. It is the position of Liberty.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I make it clear that I am not, and will not be, in a position to give the noble Baroness any clarification on that at all. I am not in a position to tell her whether she is right or she is wrong. Bearing in mind the sensitivity of this issue, the noble Baroness should recognise the position in which the Government find themselves. If she were right, we would not be able to confirm it; if she were absolutely, fundamentally and irritatingly wrong, I would not be able to say anything about it either.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: The organisation Liberty has presented that argument publicly. While I of course understand that the Government are bound by concerns about security, it is a matter of public concern if rolling powers are operating in that way. I make it clear that I am not against the existence of powers under Section 44. It is appropriate for the police to have emergency powers that can be used in terrorism-related circumstances. The whole purpose of Section 44 was to provide for the kind of emergency where it could be said that the police need not even have suspicion. Perhaps he came in late during the argument, but my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock is wrong: if the police suspect someone of terrorism, they have powers to act. That is not required under Section 44, which does not even require reasonable suspicion, but gives powers just to stop and search without there being any standard of the kind that normally applies in stop and search powers.
	While it is accepted that these kinds of powers should exist, it is being argued that they should be carefully constrained and operate within a much tighter regime than currently exists. All that one is saying to the Government is that, in bringing in legislation, sometimes you have the opportunity to reflect on its operation over a considerable period. Here, it is two years. If it looks as though it is being used in a way that may run counter to the purposes for which it was put in place, and may have the negative effect of interfering with police intelligence-gathering, as referred to by the Metropolitan Police Authority, that is a serious consequence, and I am sure the Government are mindful of it.
	It is precisely because of our concerns about the way the section is used by the police that we are raising the possibility of constraining this section. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that if the police have the kind of suspicion he describes—a police officer's sixth sense that something is not quite right in a particular set of circumstances—there are powers under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 that allow them to act. We are concerned about this special power under Section 44 that does not require any reasonable suspicion at all.
	Liberty and other justice organisations are seeking—

Lord Harris of Haringey: My apologies for interrupting the noble Baroness. I am grateful to her, and I apologise for missing her opening speech. With regard to the argument she is now developing, I want to clarify that the point of Section 44 powers is to make a target more difficult. If it is apparent that one person in five is being stopped by the police on an entirely random basis, that makes it more difficult for terrorists to act under those circumstances. Surely providing the police with considerable flexibility to act in that sort of way without there being suspicion about any of the individuals being stopped, while making a target more difficult, is desirable. As I understand it, that was one of the objectives of giving the police Section 44 powers.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I am sorry my noble friend was not present when I made the argument in the first instance, because that is precisely my argument. It is absolutely right, when there is a set of circumstances where you want special powers—where there is intelligence, or a visit by a state leader, or a political event taking place—that you do not have to have suspicion, but would just stop every fifth person. Or you could stop and search everyone, and we would all, as citizens, agree to that happening. One does not want powers to be directed against someone because they wear a political t-shirt that someone does not like, or against minority communities who may see them as racially discriminatory. One could tighten Section 44 in a way that would prevent that kind of use of the power, which interferes with the "hearts and minds" argument that is so essential to intelligence-gathering. The Committee may have the opportunity afterwards to see the Hansard report of this, because that is the argument I am making.
	These powers are necessary, but it is how they are exercised that is so important. One is seeking to create a tighter regime and some parliamentary involvement by allowing Parliament to be aware of the existence of notices. I hope that we may reflect on this in the period in between. The drafting in this amendment may be inappropriate, and maybe the Government themselves can come up with some better formulation. What is needed here is a much tighter constraint on the way the section is currently being used.
	Intelligence is key to defeating terrorism. Of course that cannot be done by laws alone, however strong and severe they might be. Indeed, certain measures may at times be counter-productive. I hope that what is being suggested here is a sensible, measured and practical attempt to constrain the way in which these powers have been used over the past two years. It should not be too broadly drafted, but should operate within a much more limited time frame. I hope that the Government will take time to think again on the suggestions that the amendment contains, but I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 30 [Amendment of the Intelligence Services Act 1994]:

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 133:
	Page 30, line 4, leave out "senior"

Lord Elton: I shall speak to Amendment No. 133A with this amendment. These are probing amendments. Clause 30(2) amends the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to enable the Secretary of State, under certain circumstances, to delegate his power to issue warrants to "senior officials" under that Act. The warrants authorise the doing of some quite startling things—capable, if bungled, of causing a good deal of international and national uproar—so the term "senior" is important.
	There is no indication here of what constitutes seniority, but Section 11 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, if we follow it through, is amended to say that,
	""senior official" has the same meaning as in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000".
	If we follow through to that Act, we see that it has two interpretation sections of which the second says, in subsection (2):
	"Subject to subsection (3), the persons designated for the purposes of this Chapter are the individuals holding such offices, ranks or positions with relevant public authorities as are prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State".
	No doubt there is an order, and no doubt the Minister is familiar with it. I could not find it.
	What I am after are the criteria of seniority, in wisdom and responsibility, of the people named in it. The legislation which I have referred to suggests that what is nominated is not a person but a position—the town clerk or the head of intelligence for the time being, as it were. Since these are important decisions, it is important that we should know that they are to be carried out by fit people. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for tabling these amendments, which enable me to go into a little detail in explaining Clause 30, which amends the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I will bear in mind the real point of the noble Lord's amendment, which is how we define seniority.
	To understand why that fits, let me say that the intelligence and security services, as the noble Lord knows, work tirelessly to disrupt and interrupt terrorist activity in the United Kingdom and abroad. To do so, we need them to be flexible and adaptable, capable of facing an ever-changing challenge posed by the international terrorists whose purpose is to destroy our very way of life. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 permits the authorisation of certain acts that would otherwise be contrary to British law. Section 7 relates to the authorisation of actions abroad, while Section 5 relates to the authorisation of actions within the United Kingdom. The issue of an authorisation or warrant, enabling the carrying out of such actions, is under the authority of the Secretary of State.
	A senior official is anyone holding a position in the senior Civil Service. That is, using old-fashioned language, an assistant secretary, also known as a grade 5. Someone becomes a senior official once they are, in current parlance, a grade 5.
	It is clearly of the utmost importance that the intelligence and security services are able to disrupt the activity of terrorist groups. Clause 30 streamlines the warranty to enable greater flexibility to respond to the threats faced from international terrorism. For that reason we have made it clear that a senior official would need to be involved in any such process. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord's question and whether he wants me to continue and delight the Committee with all the other things that I could say in relation to this amendment, or perhaps that is enough.

Lord Elton: "Delight" is in competition with Christmas, so I would not press the Minister to go too far. I am a little disturbed, as what she has said appears to me to mean that every assistant secretary in the home Civil Service is already vested with these powers. I am glad to see her shaking her head. I presume they are named within a department by the Secretary of State. If she could tie that up, I would be very happy.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It means that anyone who is identified and entrusted with this work has to be at least at that level. Of course, it would be invidious to say, "It has to be within this department and it has to be this person", but it has to be an identified person who is at the level of a senior civil servant.

Lord Elton: So it will name Fred Smith rather than saying "the assistant secretary in the Home Office at such and such a time". I wait for the nodded head but I do not get it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am not sure it would name Fred Smith, but it would name someone who is of the level of Fred Smith, in a specified way. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I see vigorous nodding to show me that what I am saying is absolutely correct.

Lord Elton: I was afraid of nominating a post rather than a person, because it could depend on the character of the person. With that understood, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 133ZA:
	Page 30, line 12, at end insert "and section 7(1) shall apply though authorisation had been given by the Secretary of State"

Lord Elton: A tiny error has crept into the groupings list, which I thought I had avoided. Amendment No. 133ZA should stand on its own; I have decoupled it. This again is a probing amendment. Warrants may be issued with the express authority of the Secretary of State, as we now know, to senior officials. Clause 30(3) restricts that provision to cases in which the actions authorised to be done in the British Isles conform to a condition, extant immediately before the issue of the warrant. That condition is that if they had been done outside the British Isles, they would have been authorised under Section 7 of the ISA, which is the section that, in effect, provides an indemnity in the United Kingdom for persons doing abroad things that would be crimes if done at home.
	That seems to be a rather roundabout way of saying that the warrants can authorise criminal activity in the British Isles. So the intention appears to be that senior officials shall, in an emergency, be able to authorise the doing of criminal acts in the United Kingdom if, at the time the authorisation is given, they would have been indemnified under ISA Section 7 if done abroad. But, in this case, the authorisation is not given under Section 7 and, therefore, the question arises in my mind whether the person authorised is to be indemnified, as I am sure is the intention of the draftsman, for the criminality of his action as he would be if it had been so indemnified. It seems to me that if we concede that crimes can justifiably be legitimised by circumstances, we ought to ensure that those who are authorised to commit them are not punished for doing so. The amendment is designed both to probe this question and to enable us to consider whether the situation so revealed is desirable. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not think the amendment is necessary. I shall explain why. In one sense, we could have had the debate on Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 with this amendment as they fit in with it, but I shall try to take them out of sequence. The amendment adds a section of text to Section 6(1) of the Intelligence Services Act as inserted by Clause 30(3) of this Bill. The purpose of Clause 30(3) is to establish that the senior official nominated by the Secretary of State can issue Section 5 warrants in urgent circumstances and that he may do so only if the actions covered would be authorised by a current Section 7 authorisation if carried out overseas. That is how I understand the noble Lord puts the matter.
	I believe that this amendment is intended to establish that the actions authorised by such a warrant, issued by a senior official, will be treated as if they were authorised by the Secretary of State under Section 7 authorisation. I see the noble Lord agreeing with that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for attempting to clarify that, although I do not believe that it is necessary. Referring back to Section 7 authorisation may be misleading, as Section 7 authorisation may relate only to actions taken overseas, whereas Clause 30(3) relates to the issue of warrants in urgent-circumstances actions in the British Isles. So Clause 30(3) is intended to set out the limits in which a nominated senior official may issue a warrant under Section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act and the subsection does not, therefore, set out the effect of the warrant.
	The short answer to the question raised by the noble Lord in relation to the actions is, of course, that they are lawful and not criminal. So by reason of the warrant under Section 5, the authorisation is relevant only as a precondition of issue and an urgent warrant in the circumstances proposed by the new powers. The difficulty that the noble Lord sees does not actually exist in fact. As I said earlier, the subsection does not set out the effect of the warrant; the amendment appears—I say "appears"—to insert the effect of the warrant. I can understand from the way in which the noble Lord put the matter that that may not be what he thought his amendment did, but it appears to do that. It is unnecessary as the force of the text is already provided in the relevant parts of Section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act. The noble Lord need not concern himself with the fact that the way in which the clause has been put together would somehow put the official who was authorising it into a difficulty greater than that—I see the noble Lord shaking his head—

Lord Elton: I was not worried about it before because the official will know what he is doing. I am worried about the operative who is given the warrant because what he does, under certain circumstances, is criminal. In the original section he is protected by the fact that he is under the skirts, as it were, of the Secretary of State. As this is not given under Section 7, that skirt does not appear to be extended to the operative. I am trying to visualise the situation when an unfortunate man or woman does something illegal under a warrant given to him but the warrant does not actually protect him from pursuit in the courts.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The short answer is that if he does that which he is entitled to do pursuant to the warrant, he will have acted lawfully.

Lord Elton: I am very happy with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 133A not moved.]

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 134:
	Page 30, line 36, after "believed" insert "by the Secretary of State or the person authorised by him to issue a warrant under section 5"

Lord Elton: I shall try to compress what I have to say into a couple of sentences. I am left in doubt about one thing. It is not clear to me, as a bungling layman, in whom the suspicion must exist—a bungling but law-abiding layman, my noble friend prompts me to say. The Bill does not specify in whom the belief must subsist. Normal usage would suggest that it is believed by the public or by the police or by No. 10. We need to be specific and I have tabled this amendment to find out who has to believe it. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It may be easier if I explain how we say these two fit together. Under the current provisions in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Secretary of State may issue an authorisation under Section 7 to enable the carrying out of acts overseas that would be contrary to UK law if carried out in this country.
	In order for an authorisation to be issued in the first place it is required that the issuer be of the opinion that the target for acts authorised under Section 7 is located outside the United Kingdom. Only the Secretary of State or, in some specific circumstances and situations, a senior official, are entitled to issue an authorisation.
	An authorisation will then be passed to the agency permitted to carry out the actions it sets out. If, in carrying out the action, the person holding the authorisation discovers the target to be within the United Kingdom, the changes made by Clause 30 provide that they will continue to be authorised to carry out the activities in question, if those actions are such that they could have been authorised under Section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act.
	The duration for which they would continue to be authorised to carry out acts, while the target is in the UK, is a maximum of five working days. This should provide sufficient time to assess the situation and return to the Secretary of State to obtain a warrant under Section 5, if judged appropriate.
	The amendment tabled by the noble Lord might be intended to require the person authorised to carry out actions to return instantly to the person issuing the authorisation and make them aware of the fact that the target is actually in the UK. This may not be possible in an urgent operation, and would eliminate the necessary flexibility that the clause is intended to produce.
	I remind the Committee that this particular provision is intended to ensure that no damaging hiatus exists in an authorised operation intended to disrupt terrorist groups and others, overseas, if members of that group and their property were to enter the United Kingdom. This provision gives us that flexibility.
	The noble Lord's amendments relate to Clause 30(6), which inserts new subsections (11) and (12), among others, into the Intelligence Services Act. The belief referred to in those subsections belongs to the person carrying out the action outlined in the authorisation. This is clear in the amendment. The location of the target property will not always be known as being in the United Kingdom, so the amendments would relate this belief back to the person issuing the authorisation. We would argue that this misunderstands the specific situation—that it is not the person issuing the authorisation who carries out the action.
	The amendment would also create the eventuality in which an individual holding an authorisation would be required to return to the person issuing it in the case that the target enters the United Kingdom, forcing them to cease any actions they are carrying out. It is precisely this case that this clause addresses: in allowing the continuation in the UK of actions that have been authorised overseas, it grants a breathing space to the agency responsible in which a warrant need not be sought for actions in the United Kingdom and which would avoid criminal and civil liability.
	Such a breathing space is necessary, as it is often the case that a warrant may not be obtained instantaneously. If this provision is amended, it would not be possible for the operation to continue if the target for actions were to be discovered to be in the United Kingdom, while the warrant was sought. I hope that has better explained why we say that the amendment is not necessary and the two have to go together as we have constructed them. We think that the clause is sufficiently clear to achieve its effect and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord strip out the very usefulness of the amendment made in Clause 30. I hope that, following that explanation the noble Lord will agree that his amendments are not necessary and he will withdraw them. I accept that he was probing for an answer and I hope that he has now received a full one.

Lord Elton: The noble Baroness has given a full and satisfactory answer to Amendment No. 136, which I shall not move when we get to it. However, I am left a little concerned about the mistaken belief existing in the mind of the operative—that is the man or woman in the field; as I understand it that is what the Minister said—because the man or woman in the field will know where the thing is that they are doing the thing to, because they will be there doing it, will they not?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have made clear that the whole point of this provision and the way it works is to allow those who are following an operation, if they have a warrant which was supposed to be exercised outside the jurisdiction and they discover that the person, contrary to reasonable belief, is no longer outside the jurisdiction, but comes back to within the jurisdiction, they will be able to continue that operation. What the amendments would do is to strip that flexibility out.

Lord Elton: That is not quite what the Bill says. In subsection (11), which is where this comes from, it says,
	"An act is done in circumstances falling within this subsection if it is done in relation to the property at a time when it is believed to be outside the British Islands."
	If the person is doing it to the thing in the British Isles, it must be clear to him that he can no longer believe that it is outside, is that not so?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It depends on whether the person who has the warrant knows the location of the property. In the case of trafficking, for example, the person may not immediately know the location or the details of that location. That is why the flexibility is necessary. Would it be helpful if I wrote in clear terms to the noble Lord in relation to this issue, so that I will perhaps be able to satisfy him more easily on paper?

Lord Elton: I am sure that I shall be happy with the last letter I received from the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clause 32 [Disclosure notices for the purposes of terrorist investigations]:

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 137:
	Page 33, line 4, after first "of" insert "section 1(5) of"

Lord Elton: When I spoke to Amendment No. 96, which was grouped with this amendment, I said that I would come back to it if I was not satisfied with what the Minister told me in the interim. What the noble Baroness told me in respect of this amendment was,
	"Your amendment 96 (and the similar ones grouped with it) queried why the definitions of terrorism in the Bill refer to the Terrorism Act 2000 as a whole rather than specifically to Section 1 of that Act where the definition is contained",
	as one might have said is the normal form. She goes on,
	"This Bill provides that the term terrorism has the same meaning in the Bill as is provided for throughout the Terrorism Act 2000, not just in the definition of Section 1. That Section solely provides the interpretation of terrorism that allows the other provisions in that Act to be understood and the term terrorism in that Act needs to be understood in the separate contexts provided for. We are simply extending that."
	If the noble Baroness could tell me succinctly how I could discover the meaning of terrorism at different points in this Bill, as related to different points in the Act, and why it cannot have a single definition, as would have been better I would have thought, first time around anyway, I would be most grateful. I would not want her to take too long about it, and nor would anybody else, I fear.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord will have to put up with this noble Lord on this one. As ever, I applaud the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for clarity and comprehension, for which he has a long track record. I was recently reminded of a very long track record. The noble Lord taught a friend of mine, who said to me recently, "the good thing that you can understand about Lord Elton is that clarity is his middle name". That was a nice compliment for him to make.
	We do not think that there is any ambiguity in the parts of the Bill that the noble Lord's amendments seek to alter. They all relate to the definition of terrorism and in each case relate back to the Terrorism Act 2000. All the references concerned are clear on this point and there are helpful pointers to explain which sections of the Act the reader should look at. There should not be any confusion.
	I am afraid that making these changes would result in a provision that would not be as apt as the provision in the Bill. The term "terrorism" is defined for the purposes of the whole of the Terrorism Act 2000 not just Section 1 of that Act, as would be the implication of these amendments. Section 1 may contain the definition of terrorism, as the words in brackets helpfully explain, but that definition applies to the whole of the 2000 Act, as it will to the whole of Part 1 of this Act. This is a subtle distinction but an important one.
	I should draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that several of the terms used in the definition of terrorism in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are themselves defined later in that Act, in Section 121. For example, the terms "action", "firearm", "explosive" and "property", all of which feature in Section 1 of the 2000 Act, are all defined in Section 121 of that Act. Section 121 is not the only place in which relevant definitions appear. The definition of "proscribed organisation", for example, is to be found in Section 3(1) of the 2000 Act.
	For those reasons, I think the current drafting is correct. It is technically accurate in that it refers to the definition used in the 2000 Act, not the definition used in a particular section of it, and it provides a helpful pointer towards Section 1 of the 2000 Act as the place where readers may find the body of the definition. As I have indicated, I am sure that these amendments are very well intentioned but I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will appreciate why it would be appropriate to withdraw them.

Lord Elton: It is nice to know that something that one has taught has stayed in someone's head, and it is particularly nice when it is agreeable. That is not what one always expects.
	I shall read the Minister's explanation with care. My desire is simply to make it easier, not just for common people such as myself, but for lawyers, to get at the meaning. If a whole hour had to be set aside to decide what "terrorism" means in this part of the Bill it would be a great pity. However, that is by way of a lament. I thank the noble Lord for his answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 33, line 5, at end insert "as amended by section 33 of this Act"

Lord Elton: Clause 33 amends Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to which both Clauses 16(9) and 32(4)(a) and (b) direct the reader. Again, it is simply politeness and conciliation to the reader of the Bill to signal that at this point and to make it easier to understand the statute. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his continued consistency. These amendments are unnecessary. They provide that the references in the Bill to the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000 should make explicit and refer to the fact that the Bill makes a minor modification to that definition.
	However, that is automatic. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, references to an enactment are to the enactment as amended. It is for that reason that the additional words are otiose. Other references in Bills to other enactments do not identify the earlier amendments made to them.
	If your Lordships see fit to let—

Lord Elton: I have heard what the noble Lord intends. I am merely suggesting a form of drafting that was common long after 1978 when the Interpretation Act was passed. I have made an offer; it has been rejected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 140 to 142 not moved.]
	Clause 32 agreed to.
	Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.

Baroness Cox: moved Amendment No. 143:
	After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
	"AMENDMENT OF PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2005
	(1) After paragraph (p) of section 1(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (c. 2) (power to make control orders) there shall be inserted—
	"(q) a prohibition or restriction on his acquisition of specified property or assets (including intellectual property) or his use of rights enjoyed in respect of specified property or assets (including intellectual property);
	(r) a requirement on him to dispose of specified property or assets (including intellectual property) whether by sale or otherwise;
	(s) a requirement on him to disclose whether he has disposed, or is in the process of disposing, of specified property or assets (including intellectual property) whether by sale or otherwise, and, if so, to whom that disposal was made or is proposed to be made;
	(t) a requirement on him to disclose whether he holds specified property or assets (including intellectual property) in trust for, or under any other fiduciary obligation to, any person or institution and, if so, what the terms of that trust or fiduciary obligation are and the identity of any beneficiary or principal."
	(2) After subsection (8) of section 1 of that Act there shall be inserted—
	"(9) The references to property or assets in subsection (3)(q), (r) and (s) include references to property held by the individual as a trustee or under any other fiduciary obligation.""

Baroness Cox: I emphasise that this is a probing amendment that seeks reassurance on issues that I raised at Second Reading, when, I fear, my speech must have sounded rather like an excerpt from The spy who came in from the cold, especially for noble Lords who were not present at the time of the incident that triggered my concern.
	Since Second Reading, the Minister has discussed this issue with me and written to me, for which I thank her. However, my concerns remain and are shared by many people. It would therefore be very helpful if the Minister could provide assurances that this Bill or previous legislation prevent the financial penetration of institutions of key strategic, military, technological or commercial significance by persons who could use their positions for purposes associated with terrorism.
	The example that I described at Second Reading raises specific questions concerning the ownership of significant numbers of shares in firms responsible for security surveillance systems here in Parliament and at other key strategic institutions, such as Ministry of Defence buildings, commercial organisations such as Texaco and British Airways, symbolic locations such as Canary Wharf, and sites of maximum security risk such as the nuclear installations at Dounreay and Sellafield. I am not asking the Minister to comment on specific cases now, but there is widespread concern about the broader issue of the vulnerability of such institutions through the financial control or undue influence through ownership of a significant proportion of shares by people with terrorist intent or connections.
	Such influence could include, for example, the appointment of staff. It would need only one or two people, with access to all the internal features of an organisation or regular movements of key personnel and so on, who could, when the time was ripe, initiate a terrorist act and wreak death and destruction from inside a building. In that case, elaborate fortifications and the dedicated police force which protects the exterior of such buildings would be irrelevant.
	I am not paranoid. The amendment seeks to prevent a potentially realistic and catastrophic scenario. Can the Minister say whether there is internal security vetting for all employees here in Parliament and other institutions of key significance, or whether the responsibility for such vetting lies with the employer or contractor? If the latter is the case and the firm employing staff were to have any direct or indirect interest in terrorism, is that not an issue that needs to be addressed?
	The Long Title refers to,
	"conduct carried out . . . for purposes connected with terrorism".
	This is relevant to the concerns that I have identified. Clause 5 deals with people engaging,
	"in any conduct in preparation for terrorist activities",
	and seeks to restrain it. I shall refer to people who are engaged in such conduct as falling within the Clause 5 principle. The amendment seeks to probe the scope of current provision in this area and to pursue the Clause 5 principle of restraining preparation for terrorist acts. More specifically, perhaps I may ask the Minister the following questions.
	First, is there adequate provision in present legislation or in the Bill as it now stands to cover the acquisition of property, in particular share interests in companies and intellectual property, by people who are engaging in preparation for giving effect to terrorist intentions, which is the principle of Clause 5? Secondly, is there adequate provision for restricting the use of rights to, for example, vote at AGMs, or employ staff, that arise from possession of such property, for people falling within the principle of Clause 5? Thirdly, is there adequate provision for ensuring that people within the principle of Clause 5 can be properly and fairly compelled to divest themselves of certain kinds of property? Fourthly, are there adequate mechanisms for tracing the disposal of property by people falling within the Clause 5 principle? Fifthly, are there adequate mechanisms for ensuring that people falling within the Clause 5 principle do not use trust or other assets held in a fiduciary way improperly? In this connection, are there current legal provisions to prevent the use or abuse of charitable money for purposes associated with terrorism, or do the provisions of the Bill already cover this contingency?
	It is with these questions in mind that we bring these amendments forward. I emphasise that, given the Clause 5 principle, they lie properly within the ambit of the Bill. In detail, they propose amendments to Section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. They are to be inserted after Clause 34 of the Bill, because they are miscellaneous provisions, falling within the main purpose of the Bill. Subsection (1) of new Clause 35 makes it clear that the power to make control orders, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, definitely extends to the kind of questions I have just raised.
	Therefore, I shall briefly and specifically describe the amendments in detail. Paragraph (q) deals with stopping someone with terrorist intentions or connections obtaining ownership or control of certain kinds of property, or using that ownership in undesirable ways. An example would be ownership of a software company whose work has defence implications. Paragraph (r) deals with requiring someone with terrorist intentions or connections to cease owning certain property; for example, where a biotechnology firm holds stocks of potentially dangerous organisms or biological material. Paragraph (s) allows investigation of how someone within the Clause 5 principle may have disposed of certain property and on what terms. For instance, where sensitive intellectual property rights have been sold or passed on, it is important to know the identity of the recipients. Paragraph (t) allows investigation of whether someone is really a nominee for another person or group. Clearly this is of pressing interest where exact chains of responsibility may not be those immediately apparent; for example, where there is a secret holding company registered abroad.
	Subsection (2) of the new clause ensures that trust assets may be properly protected and not abused for terrorist purposes. We have used wide terms such as "property" and "assets" because we recognise how wide the class of things is that might be perverted for terrorist purposes. We have used both the technical term, "trust", and the broader term, "fiduciary," to cover the different ways in which someone with legal title may be obligated to deal with property at someone else's direction.
	I am most grateful for the opportunity to bring these concerns to the Committee of your noble Lordships' House. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships that this Bill, or previous legislation, prevents financial penetration of organisations of key strategic financial, political, technological or military significance by those who have an ultimate objective associated with terrorism. If this is not the case, I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will consider introducing amendments on behalf of the Government to close this massive security loophole.
	I am aware that, like so many measures which have to be taken to deal with this new kind of terrorism, which endangers innocent people on a massive and unprecedented scale, the balance shifts a little in the direction of prevention, rather than our historic and cherished priority principle of response after the act. But as Sir Karl Popper eloquently explained in The Open Society and its Enemies:
	"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them".
	I beg to move.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I rise to support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Cox, to which I have added my name. The amendment follows on from our debate at Second Reading on 21 November (at cols. 1423–26 and cols. 1476–78 of the Official Report) to which, I regret to say, the Minister was unable to give any sort of satisfactory reply (at col. 1492). In my remarks at Second Reading I detailed the case of a gentleman with clear Islamist links who owns 75 per cent of a UK company which supplies high-tech surveillance and security management to this Palace of Westminster and other locations as mentioned today by my noble friend. I revealed that when the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I raised this situation with the security services we were told that we had nothing to worry about because the gentleman in question took no interest in the day to day running of the company, despite having increased his shareholding from 25 to 75 per cent around the time of 9/11 and ignoring the fact that, as controlling shareholder, he hires and fires the directors and fixes their remuneration. They must do as he wishes or get another job: he is the company.
	When the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replied, she was constrained by the fact that it was 10.05 pm and she felt that she could not comment on individual cases or security issues. She then wrote what I can only describe politely as a classically unhelpful letter to my noble friend on 7 December, which was not copied, as promised, to those of us who had spoken in the debate. This is not her fault, of course, but it was sent on to me by my noble friend. I have put a copy in the Library but I cannot resist quoting the final paragraph, as it is one of which Sir Humphrey would have been extremely proud:
	"Regarding your specific question about persons of concern holding a controlling interest in the company bidding for or holding such a contract"—
	that is, the kind of contracts I have mentioned—
	"I am again unable to be specific about whether, when and how assessment of the controlling interests in a particular company is or is not carried out. However, I would like to assure you that the Government take these matters very seriously and due care is given to ensuring that sensitive Government assets and information are protected".
	We were not just talking about "sensitive Government assets and information". We were talking about the whole range of our industrial, commercial and charitable infrastructure. This is what this amendment seeks to address.
	Perhaps I may put some simple questions to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in order that we can all understand just how exposed we are? First, when a contract is awarded, giving regular access to a government location or a major industrial or commercial interest, together with opportunities for entrance and surveillance—for instance, the cleaning contract in your Lordships' House—is the vetting of all personnel involved left to the contractor, or is it validated independently by the security services? Secondly, what mechanism exists for assessing and, if necessary, removing controlling and substantial interests in our non-governmental industrial, commercial and charitable infrastructure? Thirdly, what duty is placed on this infrastructure to ensure that its own and its contractors' personnel are adequately vetted?
	At this point I can hear my fellow employers in your Lordships' House groaning somewhat at the thought of yet more regulation. We are already submerged by mountains of pointless red tape, most of it forced on us by the beings from outer space who have taken us over via the European Union. We have directives and laws on sexual discrimination and harassment, part-time workers, the handicapped, the hours we are allowed to work and those who may or may not share the colour of our skin. We can freely employ any dodgy character who comes our way from the European Union, but not our skilled and laudable kinsmen from Australia, New Zealand and the USA. We are even supposed to ensure that our workmen on building sites do not expose their posteriors to sunburn, and that they do not climb a ladder unless another workman holds its bottom. In short, we have already gone completely mad.
	"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad",
	so why do we not have some regulation which might do something to protect our industrial, commercial and charitable infrastructure from the gathering clouds of Islamist terrorism? If the Minister does not want to place an additional burden on our compliance officers, I promise that I can sit down with her and advise her on which items to jettison from the present culture of overregulation, which is most of them.
	Since our Second Reading debate, I have heard disturbing rumours from friends in the security services, which leads me to ask two further questions. First, is there any truth in the suggestion that our vetting procedures generally are being or are going to be relaxed? Secondly, are our procedures for checking the credentials of asylum seekers being relaxed? On a related matter, I note from the front page of today's Times that the Britishness test for Imams has been abandoned and feel sure that this must be a mistake in the current climate. Will the Minister confirm that that has happened and tell us why that decision was taken?
	Finally, this leads me to refer to what I said at Second Reading about the present state of the Muslim religion and the vital need to stimulate more debate within Islam about its true nature and purpose. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is no longer in this place because I was struck by what he said in Committee on this Bill on 13 December (at cols. 1181 and 1182 of the Official Report). The noble Lord is a respected pillar of the Muslim community and, as such, he much regretted that members of that community in this country feel that much of the legislation going through Parliament such as the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, the Identity Cards Bill and this Terrorism Bill are all targeted at the Muslim community.
	I am sure that we all share the noble Lord's regret and frustration, but I hope that he and his colleagues will understand if I point out that the new barriers and security arrangements that surround your Lordships' House and the other place were not put there to deter Hindus, Christians, Buddhists or even Irish terrorists; they were put there to defend us against the new phenomenon of Islamist terrorism. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government have given any thought since Second Reading on 21 November as to how they might encourage serious debate within the Muslim community with a view to making the Islamists among them see the errors of their ways and so gradually persuading them to return to peaceful coexistence with the rest of us? I look forward to the Minister's replies and wish her well in her endeavours.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has made a most convincing case. It seems to me that, moreover, anyone infiltrated into or already working in a firm responsible for security in a vital installation would be well placed to gather exactly the sort of material needed to mount an attack on the security system. A sleeper could do great damage. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 5 are relevant.
	I well understand that the kind of threat which has been identified is such a delicate subject that it is virtually impossible to discuss it here without risking publicising either HMG's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the present submission. I can only say that I find it extremely disquieting that one man, a Sudanese and not a British citizen, should own a 75 per cent controlling interest in not one, but two firms responsible between them for making and setting up surveillance equipment in a wide range of sensitive British defence and nuclear installations. It is surely a cause for anxiety that these two firms are operating within and responsible for the security systems of several MoD bases, both Houses of Parliament, British Airways, Texaco, and not least 11 nuclear power stations. That is too much knowledge to be held by two basically non-British firms, where the controlling interest is held by one man, a foreigner.
	The actual British employees and managers are I am sure entirely trustworthy and efficient, and this has presumably enabled the two firms to extend their operations by osmosis across a wide range of sensitive targets by a process of introduction. Clearly, a central overview of how many targets were involved and their nature has been lacking. The database that they must hold is surely very vulnerable to infiltration and exploitation by terrorists. The Sudanese owner, or indeed any foreign owner with possible terrorist links, will be able quietly to ensure that some sensitive appointments—even one would be enough—go to his nominee—direct or indirect—possibly someone at a very modest level which would attract no attention. He or she could be triggered at an appropriate time and meanwhile would have invaluable access. I hope therefore that the Minister can assure the House, whatever the status of this amendment, that HMG will lose no time in reviewing—if they have not already done so—this potentially dangerous threat to national security, as well as providing on the face of the Bill the safeguards for the future which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is proposing. I believe that we owe a great debt to her for her determination over many months in identifying this potentially very serious threat to the safety of our country.

Lord Elton: I ask the Minister not to follow too closely some of the tempting lures laid in front of her by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The simple fact is that a controlling interest of this sort held by anyone of any nationality who was linked to any terrorist organisation of any ethnic group would be equally unacceptable, so we are not concerned with Europe or Islamists; we are concerned with terrorists. It is from them that we and the country wish to be protected.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the Minister rises, I accept the rebuke from my noble friend Lord Elton in tempting her slightly wide of the specifics of the amendment, but Islamism does enter into this amendment very seriously because the gentleman concerned has clear Islamist links.

Lord Elton: The amendment is not directed at a particular gentleman; it is directed at a particular lack in our security system.

Lord Kingsland: Any suggestion that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, makes about combating terrorism has to be taken seriously. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, observed at Second Reading, she has done more than anyone to warn of the growing danger that militant Islamism poses to Western society.
	The issue that this amendment confronts is: are terrorists or those sympathetic to terrorism buying into strategic industrial and infrastructural concerns in our country with the aim of undermining our security? The Committee will recall the worries that the noble Baroness expressed about certain companies in her Second Reading speech.
	This is a probing amendment which has the merit of asking the Government questions about matters that go to the heart of our national security. I am anxious to hear the Minister's response. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has identified a real threat; and the Minister must satisfy the Committee that it is adequately confronted under existing legislation or accept the noble Baroness's amendment or something like it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising this issue and giving me the opportunity that I was denied on the last occasion because of time, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, so aptly put it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I will do my best to resist the lures cast out by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, in relation to leading me astray down the path of commenting on things that are inappropriate to this amendment. I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that we understand the sensitivity of these issues and bear in mind the caution that she rightly mentioned in relation to this whole issue and how it must be dealt with.
	Noble Lords will know that the security issues as they pertain to this House are a matter for the House authorities. Therefore, I am unable to comment on them. I hope that the Committee will understand that.
	The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would amend the existing exemplary list in Section 1(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Before getting into the substance of the amendment, perhaps I can say something more generally on the subject of control orders. As your Lordships may be aware, it was agreed between the main political parties in July that we would accelerate the passage of the Bill and leave the issue of control orders to one side for the time being.
	Noble Lords will also be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who is the independent reviewer of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, will give his report on the operation of the first nine months of the control order regime early in 2006. That will be the appropriate time to consider the issue of control orders more generally. I hasten to make it clear that I absolutely understand why the noble Baroness raises the issue now, as it is the appropriate vehicle for her to explore the issue and give us an opportunity to talk about it. I make no criticism of the noble Baroness for doing that, as it is an important discussion for us to have.
	Turning to the amendment, the new clause would amend Section 1(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. It is important to remind ourselves that Section 1(4) of that Act contains a list of examples of obligations that can be imposed on an individual who is subject to a control order. The specified obligations are all examples of the types of obligations that can be imposed pursuant to the general power in Section 1(3), which allows a control order to impose any obligation but only when those obligations are considered,
	"necessary for the purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by that individual in terrorism-related activity".
	That limitation on the obligations that can be contained in a control order is important when considering the new clause. We think that the noble Baroness's concerns can be subsumed within those provisions. However, with the limitation that I have just outlined, I do not think that the additions suggested by the noble Baroness are necessary. There is some doubt about whether some of them may even fall within the ambit of the control order regime at all. That is because it has to be tied back into what is necessary for the purposes of preventing or restricting involvement by the individual in terrorism-related activity.
	Proposed new paragraph (q), which refers to,
	"a prohibition or restriction on his acquisition of specified property or assets (including intellectual property)",
	is unnecessary as that is covered by existing obligations specified in Section 1(4)(a), (b) or (c), which are,
	"(a) a prohibition or restriction on his possession or use of specified articles or substances;
	(b) a prohibition or restriction on his use of specified services or specified facilities, or on his carrying on specified activities;
	(c) a restriction in respect of his work or other occupation, or in respect of his business".
	Even if it were argued that the wording of Section 1(4)(a), (b) and (c) did not quite fit the particular circumstance of buying shares, it is important to remember that the obligations in Section 1(4) are examples such that similar obligations controlling the use of a person's property can be imposed, provided of course that they are necessary and proportionate to prevent his terrorism-related activities.
	On the other obligations proposed by the noble Baroness in new paragraphs (r), (s) and (t), there is a question on whether their insertion into the control order regime is practical. The control order regime is preventive as I have just explained. Obligations can be imposed only where necessary to prevent or restrict the controlled person from involvement in terrorism-related activity. Punitive obligations therefore are excluded from the regime, as are obligations that do not directly address the risk that the individual poses. To that end, we question whether the remaining proposed paragraphs could be included in the control order. With regard to proposed paragraph (r) it would be the use, not the possession, of such asset that would pose a risk. That is not to say that we do not take the possession of assets by those who pose a risk to the UK's security and interest seriously. We certainly do.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for indicating that she does not expect me to answer or comment on specific cases, and I shall not do so. The Terrorism Act 2000 introduced a number of special provisions for the detection and prosecution of terrorist finance. For instance, it provided for the seizure and subsequent forfeiture of cash at borders by the police. It required individuals to report activity that came to light in the conduct of their profession, and which aroused suspicion of terrorism. It also allowed the police to place a disclosure order on a financial institution requiring the release of customer information as part of a terrorist investigation.
	The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 amended that framework, allowing the United Kingdom to take immediate targeted action to freeze the assets of overseas individuals or groups that carry out or support terrorist acts. Part 1 and Schedules 1 and 2 to the Act contain provisions to prevent terrorists gaining access to their money. They ensure that investigative and freezing powers are available wherever funds could be used to finance terrorism. The Act gives law enforcement agencies the power to seize terrorist cash anywhere in the United Kingdom, and the power to freeze assets at the start of an investigation, rather than when the person is about to be charged, thereby reducing the risk that funds will be used or moved before they can be frozen.
	The Newton committee, which reviewed the legislation, concluded that the provisions were a proportionate and effective extension of the framework set by the Terrorism Act 2000. The Act also provides for freezing orders that ensure that controls equivalent to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 apply to terrorism. The control orders include gold, cash, deposits and securities, which include stocks, shares and debentures.

Lord Elton: Is that power dependent on the wish to interrupt the flow of cash and its availability to terrorists? If so, it is outwith the debate.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Where terrorist activity has been established, whether by an individual or whether there is a risk of it, various steps can be taken. We can freeze assets or reclaim other assets. They are all ways of getting financial control of individuals who have been identified as terrorists or who have been involved in terrorist activity. It is predicated on their being identified. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish us to be able to seize, take and otherwise deal—

Baroness Park of Monmouth: May I revert to the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton? Whatever else we may get from this extremely valuable discussion can we be assured that if there has not already been, there will now be a central review of all the organisations and targets that are known to be serviced by those two firms, so that the issue is looked at in the round from above, and not simply from the point of view of the MoD, the House of Commons or the House of Lords? That would be a major result from all this, which we are entitled to expect.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Baroness will know well from her own experience that I could not possibly comment on this case or on what has already been done. But the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has raised an important matter. We have had an opportunity to debate it and it is a matter of which the Government are fully aware. She has expressed her concerns with force and cogency and therefore, in addressing her issues, I can assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Cox, that these matters have excited the appropriate level of interest.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In that case, can I refer the noble Baroness to something that she said earlier, on which I have been ruminating? I think that she said that the Government separated the possession of an asset from the active use of an asset. Of course, that does not work if one is talking about a 75 per cent shareholding in a company. Although one may not be doing anything active with it at the moment, with that sort of power one can put people in place as sleepers, if one likes, through the directors of the company who are controlled, and one can activate that at a moment's notice. So in this review, which the noble Baroness assures us is taking place—or it may not be taking place, and she cannot tell us whether it is—I urge the Government simply to consider that controlling shareholdings of this kind cannot ever be regarded as dormant, especially when the person concerned increased his shareholding from 25 to 75 per cent at the time of 9/11 and he has an acute interest in the company.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have made it clear—and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, accepts—that it would be quite improper for me to say anything at all about the facts and the case that she has highlighted. However, I can say that one has to look at the integrity of the provisions that we have and consider whether they can meet the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and whether we need to do more. I understand that that is the thrust of the noble Baroness's attempt to amend the Bill at this stage. I am very happy to address the thrust of her amendments and I hope to be able to give her a modicum of reassurance that her concerns have already been, and are being, adequately dealt with.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It would seem that the acid test of the position put by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is this. Certain key infrastructural operations in this country are vital to our daily lives—power stations are one obvious example and there are others which are perhaps less obvious but, nevertheless, still crucial. The danger that we face from a company controlled by someone who is sympathetic to terrorism is that if that company, for example, wins a contractual bid which gives it access to a key part of our infrastructure, it can gain information from that access which would make it much easier for terrorists to take out that concern and therefore undermine our security.
	The Committee needs to know whether the existing legislation is adequate to ensure that an opportunity would not be given to a company controlled by someone with terrorist intentions. That is the acid test of the amendment.

Lord Hylton: I should like to look at these matters much more generally than in terms of the two companies to which reference has been made. I fully agree that the amendment is no doubt defective and that it is probably wrong in proposing to use control orders as a mechanism for dealing with the problem identified. But that problem seems to be the great vulnerability of a wide range of sites. I shall give one example.
	There was a recent serious fire in a fuel depot, which the media promptly hyped up into a risk of serious air pollution covering the whole London metropolitan area. Fortunately it did not come to that but, under different circumstances, it might have done. Therefore, how far does positive vetting of contractors' personnel, who already have access to these vulnerable sites, extend? How thorough is it? Who is in charge of such positive vetting? No doubt the Government will say that, where it is a commercial site, the commercial operators of the site are responsible for their own vetting. But there are a large number of government sites in varying degrees of vulnerability, and surely the Government should put their own house in order and set a good example to the commercial and private sector. I look forward to any further information that we can be given.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I assure the noble Lord that in relation to the security of government sites appropriate measures are taken by the Government, and indeed have been taken by every government that went before us. The most vigorous attention is paid to our security, not least because of the sensitivities with which we now find ourselves and which we have been talking about throughout the passage of this Bill. Therefore, I assure noble Lords that the Government are as sensitive to our vulnerabilities as are various Members of the Committee.
	I can also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we understand the import of the noble Baroness's questions. But it is a difficult matter because the whole debate is predicated on certain assertions being made by and about certain individuals, which may or may not be true. If someone had been identified as a terrorist or as being involved in terrorist activity, it would be clear that under the legislation that we have there would be trenchant opportunities for us to intervene, to remove his property, to control his activities, and to ensure that he was disabled from getting the information and taking adventitious advantage of resources which would inure to the disadvantage and detriment of our country. However, where such persons carry out lawful activity, it is right that we should not be able to intervene or interfere in the proper exercise of that activity in a way that is disproportionate and unjustified. That is the balance that we have to make. But in terms of those involved in terrorist activities, the control orders and provisions made in this Bill would then bite.
	So we have the ability to deal with matters under the Proceeds of Crime Act, as I have just described, and the 2001 Act. The Act also includes an obligation on the financial sector to report where there are reasonable grounds to suspect terrorist financing, and it gives us a power to freeze the assets at the start of an investigation, thus reducing the risk that funds will be used or moved.

Lord Elton: The noble Baroness said earlier that the amendment is not directed at the funding of terrorism but at the control of security. We have mentioned a particular case. If it is the availability of cash for terrorist purposes that triggers what the noble Baroness says is available—that is how she expressed it—that would not relate to this case. As we are discussing a case, that is relevant.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have said about six times now that I am not discussing this case, but I shall return to the facts and remind your Lordships what I have already said on the powers that we have under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 1(4). We already have under the control orders an ability to prohibit the person's possession of specified things or articles, their use of specified services or specified facilities or their carrying on of specified activities, and restrictions in respect of their business. Those issues that we have under Section 1(4) enable us to control what an individual does with the assets that he has.
	The reason why the use is important is that we need to be clear that the punitive obligations are in relation to the use, not the possession, of such an asset. We would have to look at the risk posed. Any of the control orders can be made in relation to controlling that identified risk.
	The combination of the provisions we have under Section 1(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Terrorism Acts 2002 and 2001 gives us a broad spectrum of powers to enable us to control appropriately such assets and the use to which they are put by those identified as terrorists or the financers of terrorists. I have already dealt with the first part of the argument and simply seek to reassure noble Lords that we can freeze assets too, so as to ensure that they are not used.
	I will repeat it if it assists noble Lords: the orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act can include gold, cash, deposits and securities—which include stocks, shares and debentures—and removing them from the control of those who have been identified under the Act as capable of having their property removed from them. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because I cannot say it more comprehensively.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not know whether the Minister has finished.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have not.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I will wait until she has done so.

Lord Elton: I think the Minister was giving way so that I could interrupt to say that I was totally satisfied. I have to say that it is too much to hope for. I realise how we test her patience. In the last two sentences before she sat down, she referred to powers that I will want to read about. I will reread what she says between now and Report. She seemed to be saying that if somebody who was not funding terrorism, but was in a position to control security of government and other assets essential to national life, they could be deprived of that control.
	I really cannot see that she can pin her hopes on Section 1(4)(a) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005,
	"a prohibition on his possession or use of specified articles",
	including stocks and shares. How one actually puts an order on the owner of a company telling him what he can do about the management of that company needs a little reflection as well. I thought I ought to express my reservations, because I hope I will not now be moved to say anything again before the next stage, but she will know what I am thinking about until then.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord, but I hope that he will appreciate that, if someone has acquired certain assets, we cannot deprive them of those assets simply because they happen to have a nationality with which we have concerns. That, frankly, would be intolerable.
	I remind noble Lords that under Section 1(4)(c) restrictions can be imposed in respect of business. That is under the control order.
	The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 gives effect to the UN resolution of 28 September and provides the Treasury with the power to direct that funds are not made available to any person specified under that order. Asset freezing is an essential element in measures countering the financing of terrorism, by denying terrorists and their financers access to funds across the world. I can only assume that one of the concerns is that not only may this person have financially infiltrated the system and therefore have assets, but he could also use those assets in a way that might be detrimental and to the disadvantage of this country. We have done a great deal of this work since 11 September 2001; 44 accounts have been frozen in the United Kingdom, and a total of 45 accounts are frozen by UK financial institutions.
	These add up to a substantial package of measures, which can be taken to ensure that those who are serious security concerns are dealt with appropriately.
	In relation to proposed paragraphs (s) and (t), a control order cannot be used to try to uncover criminal activity. If we impose a control order on someone because his terrorist-related activities include, for example, facilitating terrorism through holding assets on trust for other terrorists, the control order itself would address this activity by restricting it. By contrast, if no activity is suspected or known about, it is difficult to see how an obligation could be necessary or proportionate for purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by that individual in terrorism-related activity.
	I thank the noble Baroness for giving me such a delightful opportunity to explore the issue in such depth. I hope that I have satisfied her that this is a matter that the Government are seized of and which is being dealt with appropriately.

Lord Kingsland: I apologise again, but the Minister has sat down and it seems an appropriate moment.
	The Minister, in commenting on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has drawn your Lordships' attention to the fact that the control order system may not be the appropriate place for such an amendment. That may well be true; but the question that your Lordships' House is seeking to pose to the Minister is whether the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has identified a real problem. If the Minister accepts that, then I am sure that your Lordships' House would accept, in turn, that a piece of legislation other than the control order system might be more appropriate to regulate the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, identified.
	My difficulty with what the Minister has said so far is that I am still unclear whether she thinks that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has identified a problem that is not yet covered by any existing legislation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I can put it beyond doubt, I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has identified an area not covered by the legislation we have.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sorry to trouble the Minister's patience further, but I put two other general questions on the amendment which I do not think she has answered. I am sure she can give a robust response.
	Could she confirm that there is no truth in the rumours that there are plans for the relaxation of our vetting procedures generally and of the examination of asylum seekers? I am sure that she will be able to reassure your Lordships that there is no truth in these suggestions at all.
	Finally—I apologise to the House for not tabling a specific amendment—as I asked at Second Reading and again today, are the Government giving any thought to the possibility that they might encourage debate within the Muslim community on the nature and purpose of Islam, with a view eventually to eliminating violent Islamism?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am not aware of any relaxation or change in our procedures.
	On the discussion about terrorism and the contribution of all our communities, the noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and many others have already indicated that that is to be welcomed. We are working closely with the Muslim community to try to address the causes of radicalisation. We are looking at how to take forward the recommendations of the Preventing Extremism Together workshops, which have been meeting since July. All that work is important, but it is also important that we do that work with all our other communities. Terrorism does not, regrettably, attack just one part of our community. It is something to which we are all subject. That was made clear, if it was not clear before, when the bombs went off on 7 July: the people of our country, of all different nationalities, but all British, died, and they died together.

Baroness Cox: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and have clarified and enhanced the concerns I tried to express. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, very graciously pressed these points with great eloquence and I am grateful for his clarification and persistence on the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter, as I said in my opening remarks, must move a little from the specific to the general and from the general to the specific. It deals with the question of undue influence by people who might have terrorist intent through the financial influence of firms of key strategic significance of various kinds.
	As the Minister rightly said, I do not expect clarification on matters which have specific security sensitivities. That would cover relationships concerning the Houses of Parliament. We also talked about other organisations; as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, we are really talking about the whole of our industrial, commercial and charitable infrastructure. On the arrangements for ensuring appropriate employment or vetting procedures, I understood the noble Baroness to say that the responsibility lies with employers or contractors. That must be a matter of public transparency. That is not in the realm of the secret and the sensitive; we are dealing with firms such as Texaco, British Airways and others. I am still not sure how much reassurance we have had on the procedures that are in place to ensure that for key posts in those firms, there is adequate vetting for sensitive areas.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, highlighted a point which has been at the heart of my concern. Here we must move from the general to the specific. There is almost a cartel of security surveillance firms. Security surveillance for a whole range of organisations is arranged through two firms—IEDS and Protec. The range of those firms is enormously significant, particularly when one of the key financial personnel in that firm has close links with the Islamist regime in Khartoum. Saleh Idris owned a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, and anyone who owns a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum must have very close links with the National Islamic Front regime, which is committed to spreading militant Islam throughout Africa and beyond. We must move from the general to the specific in terms of transparency, safeguards and general principle.
	Disagreeing for a moment with the Minister, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said. We are addressing a specific kind of terrorism: Islamist terrorism. Of course the vast majority of Muslims in this country are peaceable, law-abiding and very hospitable, but there is a definite strand within the Islamic community in this country—and it is incontrovertible—that is committed to Islamist terrorism and is underpinned by an Islamist ideology which promotes terrorism. That is particularly worrying given the relaxation of restrictions concerning imams in this country. Those of us who have followed these issues, read the websites and heard the speeches know that there are people in this country who are promoting Islamist terrorism—Abu Hamza did it freely for many years—and that many people have come under their influence. We have people who are encouraged by their ideology to promote terrorist activities. It is a new scene which the amendment—which I said was probing—is designed to address.
	I thank the Minister for being so gracious as to call this a delightful debate; it may have been, but I found it disturbing as well. I have not been reassured about the heart of the matter, but I will read extremely closely all that the Minister has said. I will consult with people inside and outside this House who share my deep concerns over these deep issues for the security of our country and of innocent civilians who will stand to suffer if we get this wrong. In the meantime, reserving the right to come back after further consultation, I thank all who have contributed to the debate and enhanced my concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 35 agreed to.
	Clause 36 negatived.
	Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Convention offences]:
	[Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Seizure and forfeiture of terrorist publications]:

Lord Elton: moved Amendment No. 144:
	Page 38, line 37, leave out "of" and insert "for"

Lord Elton: This amendment is proposed on the grounds of good English. The header to Clause 21 is entitled "Grounds of proscription" when it should be "grounds for proscription". I then saw that in the header to Clause 24 we had got it right. I was told by the Table that one cannot amend the header because it is outside the Bill. Then, with delight, I found the phrase on line 37 of page 38, so I tabled this amendment which I hope the noble Baroness, in the spirit of Christmas, will be moved to accept. If she is not, and before she has a chance to disappoint me, I should like to say with what admiration I have watched the way in which she has conducted two main programme Bills, in parallel, virtually single-handed through this House. I have had some experience at the Dispatch Box, and know what strain she has been under. I think she has borne it with exemplary patience and clarity, and I am most grateful to her. Having said that, I cannot believe that she will not agree to the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hate to disappoint the noble Lord but it is to me that the Committee will have to listen on this very worthwhile amendment which my briefing note says we have to resist. I appreciate, as ever, the noble Lord's style in moving the amendment. I greatly admire my noble friend Lady Scotland and have enjoyed working alongside her. She has done a brilliant job on this Bill and the Identity Cards Bill, and I know that everybody shares that view.
	This is the final amendment. Paragraph 2(2) in Schedule 2, which is concerned with seizure of terrorist publications, says that a seizure notice must set out,
	"what has been seized and the grounds of the seizure".
	The amendment would change the word "of" to "for". In our opinion, that would make absolutely no difference. As a matter of law and of correct English, both terms are correct. Nor do I think that one option, rather than the other, would enhance the clarity of the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, takes the Conservative Whip, so I am sure he will be familiar with one of the great Conservative quotations in history. It was Lucius Cary, the second Viscount Falkland, who in 1641 said:
	"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
	I suggest that that would be a useful philosophy to adopt on this occasion. I hope, having heard that, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Elton: I am quite astonished to be told that accepting the amendment will make no difference but still the Government will not do it. I draw to their attention the fact that both styles are in the Bill already. Clause 21 is entitled "Grounds of proscription", while Clause 24 is entitled "Grounds for extending detention". I hope that the Government will repent of this miserly, niggardly, inflexible, sour and detestable reply they have given to a simple request, made on the eve of Christmas. None the less, I wish them well for the season. Regretfully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the Bill is reported to the House, I add my thanks to everyone who has worked so hard on all sides of the House on this Bill and, indeed, the others. We have, I think, all become firm friends as the days have gone on. I particularly thank those who have thanked me, but, with the indulgence of the Committee, I respectfully take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Bassam, who has been by my side through Bill after Bill after Bill.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	This short Bill extends the life of the provisions contained in Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 until 31 July 2007, with an option to extend the provisions for one year only thereafter. Without this Bill, the provisions would lapse in February 2006.
	The Part VII provisions are particular to Northern Ireland. They contain measures designed to tackle the threat of terrorism connected with the affairs only of Northern Ireland. That is distinct from the permanent counter-terrorism provisions in the UK, which are designed to tackle terrorism more generally.
	The Bill also makes some changes to Northern Ireland counter-terrorism legislation. It permanently repeals some of the Part VII provisions that are no longer required. It also gives the Attorney-General greater discretion to certify cases out of the Diplock system of non-jury trial, and grants the Secretary of State the ability to make transitional provision for any of the Part VII provisions which cease to have effect.
	I would particularly like to explain why the July 2007 date is contained on the face of the Bill. On 28 July this year, the IRA made an historic statement ending its armed campaign. In the light of that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced a programme to normalise security measures in Northern Ireland.
	The security situation in Northern Ireland has improved significantly. Coupled with that, the permanent counter-terrorism legislative framework in the UK has become even stronger and more effective since the passing of the Terrorism Act 2000. These two developments together mean that the temporary provisions will no longer be necessary in the future.
	Subject to a continuing improvement in the security environment in Northern Ireland, the normalisation programme envisages the repeal of counter-terrorism legislation particular to Northern Ireland in the final four months of that programme. If the security situation does not support it, normalisation and the repeal of the Part VII provisions will not go ahead. That is why the Bill contains a once-only power for the Secretary of State to extend the life of the provisions beyond 2007, for up to a year.
	We have a duty to protect the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland and we will not do anything to jeopardise this. That is why, if the security situation does not support the repeal of the provisions in 2007, we will extend them for a further year. If that is not sufficient, then, of course, the whole thing will lapse, and we will return to Parliament and seek the retention of Part VII for a further period beyond that date. That, of course, would have to be done by primary legislation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who is the Government's reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, has said that this approach is:
	"justified on the merits and proportional".
	We are optimistic that the time is right for the repeal of Part VII and a return to normalised security arrangements, but we are also cautious. This Bill ensures that we can continue to protect the people of Northern Ireland by providing the law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Minister's speech has already dealt with many of my concerns, but I shall nevertheless reiterate them.
	My chief concern with the Bill is to support the provisions which retain and strengthen the powers of the police and the status of the judicial system. I believe that the Diplock courts need to be retained, and those parts of Section 67 which provide that, because of the vulnerability of magistrates' courts, a magistrate cannot grant bail. Further, we should retain police powers for the prevention and investigation of terrorist crime; notably, the powers to arrest, stop, search and seize, and to examine documents. The Bill before us does that, and even extends such provision. As Gerry Adams famously said, the IRA has not yet gone away, despite some tardy decommissioning. The paramilitaries remain a serious threat to society.
	It is fashionable to accept Sinn Fein/IRA's dissociation of itself from the Real IRA, INLA and the Continuity IRA. However, these so-called dissident groups would never be allowed to exist and continue to recruit and train even now, according to the Monitoring Commission, if they were really defiant, independent entities out of PIRA's control. They are, for the Provisional IRA, useful organs which can be disowned, as they were at Omagh, but are, in reality, still manifestations, and even creatures, of the IRA.
	For the same reason, I am glad to see, if I have understood the Bill, that the oral evidence of a police officer will continue to be admissible as evidence that the accused was or is a member of a proscribed organisation.
	I could wish that there were not the prospect that some Part VII provisions, though continuing in force after February next year, are to cease to have effect in July 2007, but the Minister has commented on that. It has taken eight years for the IRA to do some serious—although, in my view, almost certainly incomplete—decommissioning. HMG, for its part, has demolished border posts, disbanded regiments and removed protection from police posts.
	The paramilitaries, however, are still there, dominating their communities. Those they exiled have not returned. They are not only, despite the good work of the Organised Crime Task Force, a serious threat to the economy of the country—and not just through the Northern Bank raid—but continue to prevent justice from being done, and try to exert undue influence through the so-called restorative justice networks. They have driven the McCartney sisters, good republicans, from their homes, and continue to deny them justice. The case of the McCartney murder has still not come to court, because the IRA refuses, as always, to allow witnesses to testify; another example of its total, continuing rejection of the justice system. As at Omagh, it does not recognise the British courts.
	I hope that HMG continues to maintain, for as long as possible, a criminal justice system which can deliver justice. That will certainly be at risk if criminal justice in Northern Ireland is devolved too soon. Not least, we must not allow recent developments, which are by no means what they seem, to be exploited by Sinn Fein/IRA to bounce HMG into giving more concessions prematurely in the area of policing and criminal justice that are at present, I thank God, safe and in the public interest.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill so succintly. There is a somewhat surreal quality to the debate today in the light of the recent Stormontgate revelations, but that is for another time.
	During the progress of the Terrorism Act 2000 through Parliament, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the fact that those measures were to be in place only for five years and were to be subject to renewal by Parliament by statutory instrument every twelve months. Along with many other noble Lords, I have participated in many of the debates on the statutory instruments which renewed the provisions, and others who have listened to and read the debates will agree that it is very important that Parliament has been able to look at the provisions on a regular basis and to make its own judgement about the situation in Northern Ireland and whether those provisions remained necessary.
	It has also been extremely useful in the run-up to these debates to have been able to study the annual reports of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. His work in this area has been invaluable.
	Unfortunately, given the time-frame needed to have this Bill on the statute books before the provisions run out in February, we are unable to see his deliberations on the operation of Part VII of the 2000 Act in the current year, but we shall be looking very closely at his latest report when it is published.
	It is still important to ensure that the measures we are debating today—which this Bill seeks to keep in force—are subject to a very specific time limit. We welcome the fact that Part VII is to be extended for only a very limited time—until 31 July 2007. There is provision in the Bill for the sections that are then in force to continue in force no later than 1 August 2008, but again with specific parliamentary approval by statutory instrument. I congratulate the Government on facilitating that. It is desperately important that Parliament is able to look regularly and closely at whether such measures are indeed necessary in Northern Ireland.
	It is regrettable that insufficient progress has been made in Northern Ireland in the five years since the 2000 Act was passed to render the provisions of Part VII redundant. Although some progress has been made recently in Northern Ireland, there has been such turmoil in the intervening years that it is with much regret that we have to agree with the Government that the provisions of Part VII are still necessary.
	While the IRA statement in July and the subsequent decommissioning of IRA weapons were significant events, the fact that it took so long to happen—five and a half years after all paramilitaries were meant to have completed decommissioning and seven and a half years after the signing of the Good Friday agreement—has meant that we have not yet had sufficient time to judge whether the IRA will be true to its word. The signs from the latest IMC report are encouraging and we look forward to its next report in January.
	Although there has been progress in relation to IRA violence, there unfortunately has not been similar progress made in relation to loyalist violence or dissident republicans. The violence that we saw over the summer from loyalist paramilitaries was truly horrific and unfortunately demonstrated in no uncertain terms why it is necessary for Part VII of the 2000 Act to remain in force. In saying that though, we were very encouraged to see in October that the UDA was continuing to talk to the decommissioning commission. Can the Minister tell us if any progress is being made or if there have been subsequent meetings? Is the Minister hopeful that other loyalist paramilitaries might follow this example? Can he indicate to the House what the Government are doing to persuade loyalists to give up their arms?
	We are pleased that in the past five years the Government have largely accepted the recommendations put forward in his annual reports by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. We are particularly pleased that the Government are not now seeking to resurrect Sections 70 and 71, which were repealed earlier this year. Those sections provided for the Secretary of State to make directions for young persons charged with a scheduled offence to be held in adult prisons while on remand. The power derived from a time when young persons were held in remand homes. These were insecure and presented serious problems in the management of some of the remand population. Thankfully, there have been great advances in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland in recent years, with Hydebank Young Offenders Centre and the Juvenile Justice Centre now being able to provide the level of security that is needed. These are welcome developments and the Government are right to ensure that those sections do not return to the statute book.
	However, in his report on the operation of Part VII, my noble friend Lord Carlile raised some concerns in relation to Section 108 of the 2000 Act. It makes provisions for the evidence that may lead a court to conclude that a Section 11 offence—membership of a proscribed organisation—has been committed. Subsections (2) and (3) of that section render admissible under Section 11 charge hearsay evidence which would not otherwise be admissible. The evidence must be given orally by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent. If it is his opinion that the accused belongs to an organisation which is specified, that statement "shall be admissible" as evidence of the matter stated.
	In his 2004 report, Lord Carlile found that Section 108 had not been used. In paragraph 19.7 of that report he states,
	"I am totally unpersuaded by the arguments for its retention . . . Section 108 could be repealed without any measurable disadvantage to the cause of public protection from terrorism. It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement".
	By virtue of this Bill, Section 108 would continue to remain in force.
	The issue was thoroughly debated in another place, where the Minister argued that only when the provision is tested will we know whether my noble friend Lord Carlile's concerns are justified. The Minister further argued that its repeal would undermine a prosecution case in relation to the Omagh bombing. We have considered those arguments very carefully. Can the Minister indicate whether, if it came to 2008 and the Government decided that the situation was such in Northern Ireland that Part VII was not on the whole necessary, they would keep Section 108 on the statute book if it had still not been tested?
	Our other issue of concern raised in the other place related to Diplock courts. We very much welcome the assurances given by the Minister to consult on new arrangements and put them to pre-legislative scrutiny. On the basis of those reassurances we shall not be pressing this issue at this time.
	It is important to ensure that the Part VII provisions of the 2000 Act remain in force for the time being. We shall, however, be studying with great interest and in detail the next IMC report and my noble friend Lord Carlile's next report. We sincerely hope that this is the last time that these provisions need to come before the House.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Northern Ireland terrorism Bill. In the Province there are many like me who have difficulty coming to terms with the need for this Bill at a time when the "war is over" according to the Government.
	In a Written Answer of yesterday the Government described the IRA statement of 25 September as historic. On the other hand, in the same batch of Answers to Questions I learn that to provide security for many homes has cost £45 million in five years and that the cost has gone up each year. The news is full of the fall-out from the Stormontgate spy issue and more is revealed each day. The legislation may unfortunately be required and I agree with its introduction in this form. However, the Government should have introduced measures to confront the new threat of white collar terrorism.
	Earlier this year I informed your Lordships' House about a number of issues concerning IRA supporters in the Republic—in particular about Frank Connolly and the Centre for Public Inquiry. The events of the past few weeks have proved me to have been all too correct. But the last two weeks have also highlighted the possible extent of the web of IRA/Sinn Fein sleepers and spies in both governmental systems and in other places of influence.
	How can measures in this Bill help to expose the many IRA sleepers who are in the decision-making process in Northern Ireland? Security sources tell me that they believe that there are about 200 sleepers and/or spies in high places in the Republic—right up to the Irish Prime Minister's office.
	For decades the IRA and Sinn Fein have been infiltrating the media in both Northern Ireland and the Republic. One of the Republic's main graduate journalism courses, in Griffith College Dublin, is run by Niall Meehan, a long-serving Sinn Fein official, and by that party's general secretary, Robbie Smyth. Neither has worked on any mainstream newspaper or broadcasting station. The NUJ executive in Dublin also includes Ronan Brady, whose experience in journalism is largely limited to his time on Sinn Fein's newspaper Republican News, an organ which glorified the murderous exploits of the IRA in its "War News" section.
	That much of the media is now infiltrated and influenced by Sinn Fein/IRA can be seen in the highly negative reaction in sections of the southern media, in particular the state broadcaster RTE, against the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, when he outed and denounced Frank Connolly—one of the Republic's most prominent journalists—as an IRA fellow traveller who, as I pointed out in your Lordships' House in June, joined one of the IRA's top bomb-makers, Padraig Wilson, on a secret trip to Colombia in June 2001 under a false passport. It is not a coincidence that, instead of being lauded for his actions, the Minister for Justice of the Irish Republic found himself the subject of a campaign of vilification in the Irish media. The worst example of biased coverage has been that of the RTE. In view of the past two weeks, perhaps it is time that two very senior RTE officials explained their extreme republican backgrounds.
	Gerry Adams said recently that all British and Irish spies in the IRA/Sinn Fein must be removed. I say to Gerry Adams: what about the IRA/Sinn Fein spies in the establishment, who the Irish police, the Garda, call Gerry Adams's secret army? Will he be unveiling and removing his people?
	I have been concerned for some time about an Irish-only policy being adopted by sections of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. This means that anything Irish gets support; anything that is not Irish is held up. The massive payments to nationalist festivals each year and very little to non-Irish events is an example that I have discussed with the Minister and shall return to again.
	In broad terms, I support the Bill.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it is, of course, extremely disappointing that we are still here today debating the necessity for the Bill as it touches on terrorism matters in Northern Ireland. But, as we have heard, it is still important to ensure that terrorism is fought wherever it appears—and, sadly, Northern Ireland has known its full horror for far too many years. That is why we are here to extend, yet again, the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 to Northern Ireland, and specifically Part VII of the Act which applies only to Northern Ireland, as the Minister outlined at the beginning of his speech.
	As we have heard, the provisions are temporary. We have seen them before, always hoping it would be the last time. They are also time-limited, as my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton reminded us. We therefore agree that they need to be extended once again, otherwise they will expire on 18 February.
	Progress is being made, slowly and painfully, but with some amount of good will here and there. It is to be hoped that politicians of all persuasions will work together so that these provisions may not be necessary for much longer. Perhaps this is a na-ve and wishful thought but it is the only way in which this part of the legislation will eventually be repealed.
	As my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew noted in the introduction to his Report on the Operation in 2004 of the Terrorism Act 2000:
	"Serious political parties can have no truck with organised crime or gang violence. This needs to be accepted without demur on a permanent basis by all parties in Northern Ireland. Those who oppose judge alone criminal courts there weaken their case dramatically by any involvement in the activities of ruthless criminals to whom intimidation of others is second nature. I cannot emphasise too much the importance of that observation".
	We urge all parties to think carefully about that statement.
	As it stands, those Part VII provisions extending only to Northern Ireland are to remain in force until 31 July 2007. If by then it appears to the Government that normalisation has taken place, then Part VII will be repealed, as we have heard. Of course, if normalisation has not taken place, then Part VII can be extended by order for a specified period up to 1 August 2008. Let us hope that will not be necessary.
	The Bill also makes provision to add to the list of scheduled offences under Part VII of the 2000 Act other offences created by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005; to repeal certain provisions which are not currently in force; and to retain parts of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004 until July 2007, ensuring that breaches of bail on scheduled cases are dealt with in a similar way to non-scheduled cases and also to those cases to which my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton referred.
	Perhaps the most controversial part of the Bill is to retain the Diplock courts, a matter which has already been referred to. Sections 65 to 80 and Schedule 9 deal with this part of the Bill. This court system dates back to 1972 and it is indeed regrettable that we still have to refer certain—albeit very serious—and specific cases to such courts. These special judicial arrangements are for prosecutions relating to paramilitaries and the special situation in Northern Ireland. They may still be necessary to deal with cases of witness and jury intimidation, but until normality is reached the Government feel it is still necessary to retain them. It is vital, therefore, that Parliament keeps a very careful eye on how these courts are operating. We expect to hear more about this at a later date.
	Section 108, which has been referred to, is a concern of ours and I look forward to the Minister's response to my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, who raised the matter in his speech. For how long will this legislation stay on the statute books without its ever having been used?
	This has been a short but important debate for the people of Northern Ireland and for their safety. But, as I said at the beginning, it is regrettable that the Bill has had to be brought before your Lordships' House. I reiterate that we hope it will be the last time we have to deal with these matters.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward the Bill today. I want to open by expressing on behalf of my party our almost unqualified support for the Bill. It gives the House an opportunity to take stock of all that has been achieved in the progress towards a peaceful Northern Ireland during the past decade, and particularly in the past five years since the Terrorism Act 2000 was passed.
	The Belfast of today is far removed from the Belfast of 10 years ago. The police and the Armed Forces are no longer being routinely attacked and bombings have almost ceased. More recently, the statement by the IRA on 28 July this year, as has been said by other noble Lords, confirming that it would complete the decommissioning process was long overdue but has been welcomed, albeit cautiously, by most people. As I made clear in a debate in this House two months ago, that statement was only a first step on the road to building the trust and confidence that are necessary if we are eventually to see a restoration of devolved government. It is in the context of the start of the process of the restoration of trust and confidence that I suggest to your Lordships we consider the Bill, rather than view it as a concluding of the peace process.
	We have yet to witness on the ground a complete cessation of military activity, whether by the Provisional IRA, the dissident republican paramilitaries or, indeed, loyalist terrorist organisations. It is against this backdrop that any measures to extend the Part VII powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 must be examined. The provisions of Part VII of that Act provide the security forces and the courts with the wherewithal they need to tackle terrorism and protect the people of Northern Ireland. We entirely agree with the Government that they are still vital and necessary in maintaining peace in Northern Ireland. Sadly, violence has not ended in the Province and still blights the existence of the people of Northern Ireland. As the seventh report of the Independent Monitoring Commission stated on 19 October:
	"Paramilitaries exercise control over and exploit communities which they say they protect and from which they claim support. Their hold needs to be loosened so as to help create a 'culture of lawfulness' within which the normal democratic principles of law enforcement and human rights apply".
	We recognise that normalisation has to begin and we support the attempt that this Bill signifies to create the enabling environment. For the two-year normalisation programme to progress, the Bill sets up a two-year timeframe by allowing the Part VII powers to be extended until July 2007 or, at the very latest, 2008. It is at this point that we differ from Her Majesty's Government on the question of how far into the future these powers should be extended.
	The Government seem to view July 2007 as the time after which they believe the IRA involvement in terrorism will have effectively ceased. But this view seems to me—I know I am known as a pessimist by the Government Front Bench in these matters—to be overly optimistic. There is no guarantee that dissident republican organisations will have ceased their activities and the loyalists show no sign of decommissioning or ceasing their illegal activities. The threat from terrorist-related activities may, unfortunately, continue well beyond 2007. Therefore, one might question whether it is a little premature to place the criminal justice system of the Province on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom in 18 months or, at best, two and a half years.
	It would be far more satisfactory if this type of legislation was not used as the driving force behind the normalisation programme but rather used to follow and support the programme. Amendments were proposed in another place that would have left the Government with more flexibility by allowing them to extend the legislation annually up to 2012. This approach would be preferable to us, as it would give greater comfort to the people of Northern Ireland and the special provisions could easily remain. If the Bill remains in its current form, all that the people of Northern Ireland will have to rely on is the possibility of the Government deciding to take action in 2008, as the Minister stated that they would intend to do. I hope that the Minister will give this House a firm assurance that the Government will come to an objective and fair decision on the need for these powers when their expiry time draws near.
	We look forward to debating in Committee the details of the provisions relating to Part VII, as mentioned by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. But at the outset of the Bill's passage through this House, it is right to mention one important aspect of those powers: the use of the so-called Diplock Courts. Despite concerns raised by, for example, the Northern Ireland Civil Liberties Group Committee that the risk of intimidation of jurors is not as great as the Government may suggest, we believe that it is vital to retain non-jury courts where there remains any possibility of concerted intimidation of jurors. Until such time as the terrorist infrastructures are dismantled for good, it would be folly to remove this unfortunate but necessary component of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
	At the same time, I emphasise that conducting trials on indictment without a jury is not something which in any other circumstances I or my party would normally support. Given our support for the current Diplock system, we therefore fully support also the measures in Clause 3 to add the new offences created by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 to the list of scheduled offences under Part VII of the 2000 Act.
	The necessity of this Bill is regrettable but undeniable. In principle, the Government are right to introduce it. I look forward to discussing the exact details and the Government's precise intentions in Committee. The situation in Northern Ireland still requires extraordinary measures. In extending the time scale for these measures to remain in force, this Bill should be supported.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the support—sometimes measured, sometimes almost unqualified, as the noble Lord just said—for the Bill. I shall do my best to answer some of the detailed points. We can address in Committee in the new year those that I do not cover.
	In one respect, we are continuing existing law. We are not making major changes today. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the contents of the Bill, which maintains the status quo in some respects. There would have had to have been a deterioration of some substance if we had had to talk about even a one-year extension to 2008. On the basis of the significant progress that has been made, we are confident that 2007 is fine; 2008 is a longstop. Beyond that, fresh legislation would be needed to deal with what would be a fresh situation, because, quite clearly, things would not have worked out in an acceptable way.
	The International Monitoring Commission's seventh report recognised the IRA's statement as being very significant. The report also states that initial signs, following the Provisional IRA's statement, are encouraging. The Secretary of State has drawn his conclusions from that. As has been said, it is not the end game. The report in which we will really be interested is due before the end of January, because that will cover a longer time span. The first report dealt only with the first few weeks following the IRA's statement of 28 July. The later report will deal with a further three months, so some important points are yet to be taken on board. Nevertheless, the IMC judged the IRA's statement to be significant.
	We are putting what pressure we can—if "pressure" is the right word to use—on the loyalists to decommission. We want all groups to decommission, simply because we want to return to the rule of law, and not the rule of the gun and intimidation. We call regularly on those with influence to help bring this about. I fully accept that the Liberal Democrats agreed to five years in 2000, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said. The situation has been regularly scrutinised since then, and that has been useful.
	I fully accept what has been said about the Diplock courts. There is no question that they have served the people of Northern Ireland well. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has recommended on several occasions that a three-judge court would be a potential replacement for Diplock courts, but no firm conclusions have been drawn. We are committed to the return of jury trials. That was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, and it has obviously got to be the long-term aim. Subject to an enabling environment, the Diplock system will cease to have effect by the end of July 2007—that is, the expiry of Part VII—but we are looking actively at what may be required after that period for paramilitary-type trials where jurors could be subject to intimidation, because we want to ensure the effectiveness of the criminal justice system as we go forward. We do not want to prejudge, certainly not during the passage of this Bill. I freely admit that I will not be in a position in Committee to elaborate on what might be the replacement for Diplock courts. But we are mindful that to move from Diplock to no-Diplock for everything will not be possible. Therefore, we are actively reviewing the situation and looking at potential replacements.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke strongly about the devolution of the criminal justice system. We could not devolve policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly if it returned tomorrow. The conditions are not right. Legislation will be required. That commitment was made as part of the peace process. In the early part of next year, the Government will indeed bring forward legislative proposals, and they will be subject to scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, but they will lie unused until the conditions are absolutely right. So it does not automatically follow that if the Assembly returned tomorrow, we would devolve those functions. We need to pass the legislation first. The conditions would have to be absolutely right before both Houses of the Westminster Parliament devolved the criminal justice system to Northern Ireland. In the mean time, we are strengthening the criminal justice system so that it can tackle the issues of intimidation and organised crime which the noble Baroness mentioned, but a broader devolution will not happen overnight. Separate primary legislation will be brought forward for that. It will be given Royal Assent and then parked until the situation is more satisfactory.
	One or two noble Lords mentioned Section 108. I shall quote the Explanatory Notes before I give a longer explanation. They state:
	"Section 108 allows for the oral evidence of a police officer, of at least the rank of superintendent, to be admissible as evidence that the accused is or was a member of a specified organisation. The accused cannot be committed for trial, found to have a case to answer or convicted solely on the basis of this statement".
	That is a very important caveat.
	In moving towards a normalised security environment, as we hope we are in Northern Ireland, it would not be necessary or appropriate to maintain any of the special provisions contained in Part VII. As the House knows because of other legislation going through on a UK-wide basis, the UK has strengthened terrorism legislation. It is some of the strongest and most effective in the world, so we are fairly confident that the permanent counter-terrorism powers that apply throughout the UK will be sufficient to deal with any residual terrorist threat that may linger, because these things will take a while. I suspect the tail will be quite long when it comes to the total elimination of terrorism, but we are making good progress to date.
	I shall respond briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said about sleepers and spies in the Republic of Ireland—a European Union partner, but for practical purposes a foreign country, for which I do not speak at this Dispatch Box. Neither the British Government nor this Parliament have any responsibility at all for counter-terrorism measures in the Republic of Ireland. That is a matter for the Irish Government to address. As I have said, though, here in the UK—and obviously we work with our European partners and neighbours—we have some of the strongest and most effective counter-terrorism legislation in the world. We are satisfied that it is sufficient to protect the people of this country.
	I have one more general point, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. In renewing this legislation, including dates when it will completely expire, the Government and Parliament are sending a signal that things have changed; that progress has been made, substantially over the past 10 years and very substantially in the past five; and that the security situation has shown, in the words of the IMC, "significant improvement" since 28 July last year. But there is still a massive need to build trust across and within the communities. There is no question about that. To bring about a normal civic society in Northern Ireland, as well as a normalised security situation, will need men and women of substance in positions of leadership. They are needed to operate the normal processes that we take for granted in the rest of Great Britain, which either Northern Ireland has not been able to do, or for which, in recent years, only people of non-sufficient substance have been available. This will require many changes and many pressures.
	As the Secretary of State has said, there are some corners to be turned. As we know from what is happening at the moment in the other place, there will be some legislation that is difficult to stomach. It is evil, but it is necessary because of the process we are engaged in. We hope that, at the end of the parliamentary process, and with the other actions taken, that extra trust can be in place. Without it, progress will not be made—it will be superficial. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the widespread support for the continuing of this legislation, and I look forward to debating in greater detail the contents of the Bill in Committee in the new year.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and my noble friends get settled, will he try to persuade his colleagues, the Secretary of State and No. 10 Downing Street, to improve the spin so that, when we read the press about Northern Ireland and the Government's activities, we get more confident? We are still reading a negative press from the Unionist/Conservative point of view that the Government are doing deals all the time with Sinn Fein. I am not charging the Government with that at this time, but I am charging them with failing to communicate the real messages, if they are as I hope they might be, to the population.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will transmit that request. The Government do not run the press. The press in Northern Ireland is fairly new to me, but I have gone into it in detail in the past seven months, and it has to be seen to be believed. You have to see it—that is the point. There is sometimes an obsession with the past, and with issues that people thought had been put to bed years ago; and a reluctance in some ways, even in the media, to debate normal society and normal issues.
	Led by the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland team there, we are pushing on with a normal civic society reform programme. We are pushing on with the reform of local government with a new system of raising local government finance, the legislation for which will come to this House early in the new year, and water charges—all the normal things that happen. There is reform of the health service and the education service: all these transcend the issues around security and the constitution. We are going to get on with it. We hope that the penny will drop for the media in Northern Ireland that there are other things to report than the tittle-tattle from various street corners about which group is getting what over another, and that they can be debated in a more normal fashion. The Government do not own or run the press—heaven forbid that they did—but I will make sure that the "spinmeisters" in No. 10 are well aware of the noble Lord's request.

Noble Lords: Oh!
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

European Union (Accessions) Bill

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	This momentous Bill is very brief. It will do two things. First, Clause 1 will implement Bulgaria and Romania's accession treaty in United Kingdom law. In other words, it will facilitate their accession to the European Union. Secondly, Clause 2 will allow the Government to set the terms on which Bulgarian and Romanian workers will be granted access to the United Kingdom's labour market for a maximum seven-year transitional period.
	I shall begin with Clause 1, and Bulgaria and Romania's accession to the EU. European Union enlargement has become a critical part of the process that has transformed Europe from being the,
	"breeding ground of pestilence and hate",
	described by Winston Churchill to a strong union of nation states, secure in their borders, sharing the same democratic and humane values, and enjoying peace, prosperity and stability. Enlargement has helped democratic governments of developing countries that have been dominated by fascism and communism, thereby enabling millions of people to have a voice in how they are ruled. It has reinforced the rule of law and respect for human rights, and has given us new partners in tackling the challenges of cross-border crime and terrorism.
	Enlargement has also provided new consumers for United Kingdom goods and services, and new markets for our firms. High street names such as Next, Mothercare, Marks & Spencer and Tesco are just examples of the companies now operating through the 10 new member states. Tesco has 33 stores in Slovakia and over 40 in Hungary. Hundreds more British firms are benefiting from the enlarged EU—Vodafone, HSBC, BP, Shell and GlaxoSmithKline, to name just a few. It is therefore not surprising that enlargement has become an issue on which this House has been united, and I am delighted to be able to say that cross-party consensus remains just as strong as was clearly evident in 2003, when there was universal support for the EU accessions Bill for the 10 countries of eastern and central Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said on Second Reading on that occasion,
	"we are . . . thankful that at last the moment has arrived when these vigorous and independent states, many of which have been through terrible trials and experiences, join the enlarged European Union".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. 1070.]
	This Bill is intended to do the same for two more eastern European countries that have emerged from similar trials and experiences. Bulgaria and Romania are also vigorous, independent states that have made similarly impressive advances in the space of a few years. Bulgaria's economy has consistently grown at double the EU average during the last five years; unemployment has been halved in that same period. Romania has performed strongly as well; inflation is down from over 100 per cent in the late 1990s to around 8 per cent today. It has also successfully attracted more direct foreign investment than any other state in south-east Europe.
	The prospect of EU membership has also spurred both countries to make real progress in political and economic reform. The European Council acknowledged that progress in December 2004 when it formally closed accession negotiations with both countries, agreeing that they should be ready for membership in January 2007. Four months later, in April 2005, the 25 member states of the EU signed a joint accession treaty with both countries which envisages their accession on 1 January 2007. However, unlike in previous accessions, the timing is not guaranteed. Both countries need to continue to make progress in their EU-related reforms. If they do not and either Bulgaria or Romania is deemed to be "manifestly unprepared" for membership, EU member states can decide to delay that country's entry by a year. That new approach is designed to ensure that countries joining the EU sustain their reforms right up to accession and indeed beyond. That is in the EU's interests, and in those of the countries which want to join.
	The European Commission is responsible for monitoring both countries' preparations. On 25 October it produced detailed and rigorous reports on their performance against EU commitments. In presenting these reports, Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn said:
	"Bulgaria and Romania have achieved significant progress so far in the preparations for accession. But, the jury is still out".
	The reports highlight a range of areas in which Bulgaria and Romania need to make urgent progress to be ready for accession in 2007. That includes addressing the problem of corruption which, in both countries, remains a corrosive agent, undermining public and business confidence. Part of the problem lies with their justice systems, which need further reform. Bulgaria must also tackle head-on the problem of organised crime. The daylight assassination of a high-ranking financier in October demonstrated starkly the scale of the challenge in that area.
	However, there were also a range of more specific technical concerns. For example, both countries need to do more to bring their agricultural and food safety standards up to those of the EU member states. They need to improve their capacity to absorb EU funding streams, to enhance their protection of intellectual property rights and—particularly in Romania's case—to do more to tackle environmental pollution. In the coming months, the Commission will continue monitoring the progress of both countries, targeting in particular areas of serious concern identified in the reports. It will then produce further reports next April or May.
	If the Commission has then judged there to be a serious risk of either or both of Bulgaria and Romania being "manifestly unprepared", as the words were, for membership in January 2007, the European Council can then decide to delay their entry. In addition, the Commission can impose more targeted safeguards and measures to tackle problems in specific areas. Those were considered for previous enlargements but, happily, in the event did not prove necessary.
	We are content that the EU has the right mechanisms in place to protect our interests, and remain confident that both countries can be ready to join the EU on schedule in January 2007. Yet they cannot afford to be complacent. They need to take vigorous actions now to address the concerns identified by the Commission. Of course, we will continue to provide bilateral and other assistance targeted in the areas which matter most. We already have three advisers working in Romania on corruption issues, and embassy liaison officers in both countries working with their counterparts on drugs and people trafficking. We are funding various projects in both countries focusing on human rights, judicial training and institutional capacity building.
	I am sure that your Lordships will be interested to know exactly how much Bulgarian and Romanian membership will cost, since their accession coincides with the discussions which have taken place over the next financial perspective of the EU, from 2007 to 2013. Those costs have been the matter of recent negotiation. That said, most EU expenditure on Bulgaria and Romania has been previously agreed for 2007–10, assuming that accession takes place in January 2007. Spending will total approximately €15 billion over the three years and will not be altered by our recent proposals for the financial perspective or the agreements made on it. Of that total, roughly €5.5 billion will be devoted to agriculture-related spending and approximately €8 billion to structural funds. I stress that those figures are from recent negotiations and had, up until then, been indicative.
	Of course there is a significant amount of money in the package, by any standards. But, as your Lordships will be more than aware, most of the accession costs are being borne by the new member states themselves—the objective being, over time, to ensure that net recipients start to contribute to the EU budget. Spain and Ireland are good examples of that and, indeed, Slovenia and Cyprus are performing strongly in that regard among the newcomers.
	I turn briefly to Clause 2. Under the terms of the accession treaty, the UK has the ability to decide what level of access it offers Bulgarian and Romanian workers, up to a maximum period of seven years after accession, before Community rules on the free movement of workers come in. Clause 2 gives the Government a wide degree of flexibility in deciding these terms.
	With accession still over a year away—and possibly two—it is too early to decide now what the level of access should be, and right to keep our options open. We may want to continue the current work permit scheme. Conversely, we may decide to offer more lightly regulated access along similar lines to that given to the workers of the eight central and eastern European countries who joined in the 2004 enlargement.
	As we have seen, that policy has proved a real success. Over 293,000 nationals from the A8 registered with the worker registration scheme between May 2004 and September 2005. Most workers registering are young and have taken on jobs throughout the country. Less than one in five is based in London. They are employed in a broad range of industries from administration to healthcare and farming, industries where there are serious gaps in our own labour market. They are contributing to the UK's economic growth and to our tax revenues without being a burden on the state.
	Of course, we must recognise that the situation could change. That is why we intend to take a decision on the level of access we grant to Bulgarian and Romanian workers nearer the time of their accession. In reaching any decision we will want to consider the requirements of the labour market and other member states' decisions. The Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will all be involved in that process and I should stress that any future regulations will be subject to parliamentary approval through the affirmative procedure.
	In conclusion, the United Kingdom's strong support for enlargement is well recognised throughout the world, across Europe and not least by Bulgaria and Romania themselves. Many of your Lordships on both sides of this House have played an extremely important part in bringing us to that point. We should be in no doubt that this enlargement is a real success for United Kingdom policy. It is a success both for this Government and for the country as a whole. I am certain that all of us here today will want, in the clearest possible terms, to welcome Bulgaria and Romania to the club. I commend this Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Triesman.)

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister for missing the first few minutes of his opening comments. I can assure the House that by an extraordinary manifestation of cross-party support and consensus, I have been able to ascertain the general drift of what the Minister said—indeed, the precise words. I hope he will forgive me. The timing caught me short.
	I want to make it clear to the Minister—it is probably evident to him—that there is broad and strong support from this side of the House for the Bill and for the aims and purposes behind it, notably the treaty that the Bill seeks to bring into British law. However, the Bill raises a number of acute questions about the enlargement and the whole future direction and character of the European Union to which the answers are far from clear. Indeed, in recent times, they have become even less clear. I shall return to them in a moment.
	First, I turn to the precise purpose and detail of the Bill, which is to give effect in UK law to the accession treaty opening the way, as the Minister has explained, for Bulgarian and Romanian membership of the EU. That treaty is an extremely bulky document, which I have here—I can hardly pick it up. It was laid before Parliament last August and contains four sections. One of those sections is redundant as it concerns the interaction of the treaty with the proposed European Union constitution, which has, of course, capsized and sunk to the bottom of the sea where, in my view, it deservedly lies. The section dealing with the relationship between the treaty and the constitution no longer is of any particular use.
	That is slightly odd because we were assured at the time of the debate on the constitution that our doubts about it were destructive and that the constitution was necessary—I believe those were the words of the Prime Minister—for enlargement to proceed. At the time we questioned whether the Prime Minister and the Government had that right. It turns out that our questioning was right and the Government were wrong. It is, of course, nonsense that the constitution was necessary for enlargement. Certain improvements and changes are necessary but the ill judged, ill constructed and ill directed constitution was not one of them.
	However, the episode reminds us of an important aspect of all these enlargement negotiations, and this will not be the last. There is no doubt that there is more to come with Macedonia, Croatia, Turkey, Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus—who knows?—and others. Each time there is an accession process the newcomers are stepping on to a moving platform. The EU is, to put it bluntly, in flux. The rules by which it is to be governed are unsettled; the powers and competences of the central EU institutions are in dispute—although the constitution tackled them, it failed to solve the problems and without the constitution they remain unsolved—the social policy dictates, as people increasingly recognise on all sides, paralysing economic growth in the union; and the future budget, to which I shall return in a moment and on which there has been in the words of the Minister "recent agreement", rests on vague undertakings about agricultural support which may or may not materialise. They seem to be hanging in the air.
	In a sense there is a sort of time warp at work. These new entrants believe, or are being led to believe and no doubt want to believe, that they are joining a European Union or a European Community of the kind that existed some years ago; namely, a mighty oasis of free-market vigour and democratic freedoms and values which some years ago seemed to be a bastion against Soviet communist tyranny and corporatist socialism, and an engine for expanding free markets and open markets and doing away with protection in world trade. That was the EU—before it was called a union it was called a community—that many of us admired and thought was definitely an entity that all countries in this region of the world should seek to join and join quickly. Of course, today things are not like that at all. Today the EU has lost its free-market vigour. The Soviet Union is no more and today Europe is trapped in a dense network of centralist regulations and restrictions and, as the Financial Times said this morning in its editorial, Brussels is no longer the motor or driver that it once was.
	In a way it is a pity that we cannot offer these new arrivals a better welcome and a better ambiance to join. It seems to me quite wrong, for example, that they should be required to sign up to the whole of the acquis communautaire—that is the massive book of EU powers of at least 88,000 pages and some say it is nearly 98,000, many of which are completely out of date and belong to an institutional structure and process which is not relevant in this century. Indeed, they belong to the age before the information revolution which has made the dispersal of power so much more desirable and practicable, and centralism so much more inefficient and unnecessary. In my view, a really vigorous assault on redundant acquis powers is one more thing that should have happened and one more missed opportunity under the dismal British presidency.
	Clause 1 makes the accession treaty part of UK law and deals with increased powers for the European Parliament. It does not say anything about the safeguard and postponement clauses that the Minister rightly explained, which would allow negotiations to be delayed if certain criteria in the two countries were not met. I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions about these, since safeguard measures can be triggered by old member states—the United Kingdom, among others—as well as by the newcomers.
	Who makes the key judgments as to whether the negotiations should be suspended for one year, as they can be under the treaty, or whether commitments are being met, either on the internal market front or in justice and home affairs? Who is the judge in all this? Is it the Enlargement Commissioner's say-so, or is there an open procedure? Or is there an appeal avenue? These are serious judgments, with serious effects. The Commission apparently has to pronounce whether good governance and accountability are up to standard, but is it really the body that we feel is absolutely the best to do that? One has to note that it is a bit strange that these sorts of judgments come from a body whose own standards leave much to be desired, which is not free itself of corruption taints and whose accounts the auditors regularly refuse, year after year, to sign off.
	It is undeniable that both these new accession countries have had difficulties in cleaning up corruption and curbing organised crime. However, having had the privilege of a pleasant visit to Sofia just a few months ago, it was clear to me that under the extremely well balanced and wise management and leadership of ex-King Simeon, enormous progress has been achieved. That is gratifying indeed. However, it seems to me that those of us who want to see these two new entrants fairly treated in the coming negotiations ought to be much more inquisitive about the powers of judgment and how they are going to be exercised than perhaps we have been in the past. I would like to hear more from the Minister on all this.
	Clause 2 deals with the freedom of movement of workers and one thing must be said at the outset. There can be absolutely no confidence at all in Home Office or Foreign and Commonwealth Office predictions about future patterns and flows in this area. Laughably, at the time of the last big accession to the EU, the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 immigrants net a year from the new member states into the UK. In fact, Ministers explained that between May 2004 and September 2005 293,000—not 5,000 or 13,000—workers from these countries were accepted on to the worker registration scheme. As I have calculated it, the departments here were out by about 2,200 per cent which is, frankly, not a brilliant forecast.
	As the Minister reminds us, many of those immigrants bring welcome skills and seem to be well spread out across the country and have contributed to economic growth, although there are inevitably one or two less desirable groups and practices that have crept in. But when the Minister says the policy has proved "a huge success", surely what he really means is that the success has come despite the Government's initial and frankly idiotic policy assumptions, and not because of them.
	It is therefore no surprise that this time with this smaller, but equally important, accession phase, the Government are adopting a much less cavalier and a more hands-on attitude and are reserving the power to restrict the right to work of Bulgarians and Romanians, as the treaty allows. We are told that the actual level will not be decided for another year or so. I just hope, as we all do, that the Government have better information on which to decide than they did last time. We will have to see.
	Will the Government be proposing the same restrictions on benefit entitlements as those which they had to bring in last time, when it was realised that no other member state was being as silly as we were in initially eschewing all transitional arrangements permitted under those accession treaties at the time?
	Finally, I turn to the costs and the budget. It says in the Bill, and the Explanatory Notes confirm, that there will be,
	"no significant additional public expenditure".
	The Minister has explained that there will be a cost of £10 billion, or €15 billion, over three years and this obviously has to fall on somebody. We are told that most of these costs will be borne by the new member states themselves. Is that really right? My own researches suggest that the UK contribution invariably increases every time new enlargement proposals go forward. I accept that these sums are contained within overall existing capped budget limits—or the recent agreement, as the Minister calls it. A more accurate wording in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill would have been "no further additional public expenditure". That would have been nearer to the position and would have been more accurate. I still wonder who makes room for these new outlays within the existing budget.
	Of course we must pay, and we have paid, our fair share. These are brave and spirited nations who treasure their independence and share our view here in London of how Europe should develop. But what is hard to bear is that these extra resources are being found not by cuts in the wasteful and destructive subsidies to French farmers, but from the hard-pressed budgets of the rest of us. And it is even harder to bear being told that this is a wonderful bargain for the UK.
	The truth is that the proposed further enlargement, which we welcome, must inevitably put the whole CAP structure under even more strain. Justice and fairness cry out that the system should be radically revised now if Europe is to become the more flexible and fairer network of more equal states which most of us—alas, not all of us—want to see.
	We must face the fact that there has been an utter failure to go that way, with only vague and unbankable assertions that things will be reviewed in due course. Instead, some shameful but luckily unsuccessful proposals emanated from Whitehall and the Foreign Office some weeks ago, which alienated our friends in central and eastern Europe and left wounds which will be remembered, despite the subsequent attempts to patch things up and the assurances given in the final agreement.
	Enlargement is far from popular in many member states of the EU, but here in the UK we on all sides take a positive view—which is what the Minister said, and I agree with him—and we have remembered that in the best parts of our history we have been on the side of the smaller states of Europe against the bigger bully-boy countries. That is the position as I have understood it, but in recent weeks our foreign policy makers—wherever they are in Whitehall—who are obsessed by fashionable notions about "being at the heart of Europe" and the "post-modern state" and all that nonsense, have lost sight of our true friends and interests.
	Let us hope that with this Bill, and with the accession process bringing these two nations into the European family, we remember again who our best allies are, that we remember what kind of Europe we really want to see, and that we work for it much harder and more skilfully than we have in recent times.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: The Bill relates only to the accession of Romania and Bulgaria and it is right that we should address directly the case for those two countries to join the European Union. I will try to bring a little more seasonal good cheer than the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, did.
	In recent months the issue of further enlargement has become contentious in Europe, as has not been the case since Britain was twice vetoed by General de Gaulle in the 1960s. It makes sense to look more widely at the issue of further enlargement and try to draw some preliminary conclusions about the way ahead in what remains one of the most critical policy areas with which the European Union has to deal. This is all the more necessary now that the leaders of the Union have agreed that there must be a full discussion of that before any further accession negotiations begin.
	The accession of Romania and Bulgaria is a subset of the major round of enlargement that has already taken place in May 2004. The two countries applied for membership at much the same time as the other central and eastern European countries which have already joined. It has taken longer to reach this point as a result of the greater complexity and intractability of the problems they faced in accepting the constraints and responsibilities of membership, and because, particularly in the case of Romania, they were slower to respond effectively to those challenges.
	The institutional adjustments that were needed to accommodate them have already been taken in the Nice treaty and were approved by this Parliament in that context. Only one really important issue remains outstanding and that is whether they are to join on 1 January 2007 or 1 January 2008. That decision is not pre-judged in the treaties of accession we are considering today. My own view is that this decision should not be too heavily politicised, although I have no doubt that it will be seen, particularly in the acceding countries themselves, as highly political. I suggest that it should be considered objectively, with the greatest weight given to the assessment that the Commission will have to provide. If that assessment points towards 2008 it should be understood that it will be as much in the interests of the acceding country—or countries—to take more time in preparation and join one year later, as it will be in the interests of the Union. I would also hope that if a different balance of assessment is reached with respect to each one of the two countries, it will be accepted and not brushed aside in favour of arguments relating either to bureaucratic tidiness or amour propre.
	Turning to the wider issue of further enlargement, the picture is a good deal less clear and the decisions are not for today or tomorrow, but for a more distant future. Negotiations with Turkey and Croatia have already begun, but actual accession, particularly for Turkey, is not foreseen before the middle of the next decade. All the other countries of the western Balkans—and there could well, in due course, be two more than exist now: Montenegro and Kosovo—are seeking membership. Macedonia has now been accepted as a formal candidate. Beyond them are a number of countries in the former Soviet Union, whose European identity can hardly be denied, and which also aspire to membership. We should never forget the remaining members of EFTA, who, if their electorates should ever so decide, would rapidly qualify to join and, I suggest, should rapidly be welcomed.
	It is all too easy to throw up one's hands at this list, say "enough is enough" and call for a line on the map beyond which countries will not qualify for membership. That is what many politicians across Europe have been saying in recent months, using arguments ranging from respectable ones about the coherence of such a large body to far less respectable ones, based on ethnic and religious prejudice. It is easy to call for that line on the map, but, I would argue, highly irresponsible. A restrictive decision by the European Union, amounting to the pre-emptive exclusion of a number of countries, could have extremely far-reaching and damaging foreign policy and security implications, ranging from an upsurge of instability in the Balkans, to a drift back by former members of the Soviet Union into the embrace of a far from democratic or human rights respecting Russia.
	What right does the Union have to take such a decision? The founding treaty, never changed, says clearly that membership is open to any European country. Since then the European Union has established the Copenhagen criteria for judging any application from such a country. The treaty already establishes the limits and trying to vary them would require treaty change by unanimity—an unlikely prospect, given the views of many member states. It is sometimes suggested that further enlargement, indeed, even the existing scale of enlargement, would have shocked and horrified the founding fathers of Europe, Monnet, Adenauer, De Gaspari and Schuman. I am sure they would have been surprised by it; they were, after all, operating in a Cold War dominated world. However, to suggest that they would have approved of the rejection of the candidature of free, democratic east European countries is, quite frankly, a travesty.
	It follows from this reasoning that I very much welcome the support that the Government continue to give to further enlargement, but it is not sufficient to support that cause and simply assume that it will carry the day. We surely need to try to convince those who call for a restrictive policy that this is the wrong road for the European Union to take. If we cannot persuade people of that, we will drift towards that most dangerous of all scenarios, in which a country negotiates its terms of accession, is accepted by all the governments of the European Union and is then rejected by the votes of one or more of them in a referendum. That would surely be a disaster for all concerned. To avoid it we and the other supporters of further enlargement will need to explain much more clearly and cogently than has been done in the past, the advantages, both intangible and material, which have flowed from previous enlargement and which can reasonably be expected from further ones. I do not believe that we have anything to fear from such a debate; but we certainly need to have one if we are to avoid a shipwreck. I would welcome a response from the Minister about how the Government intend to carry forward their advocacy of this aspect of their European policies.
	The transformation qualities of enlargement are really not in doubt. They have been demonstrated again and again, first in Greece, Spain and Portugal, then in central and eastern Europe. Countries freed from dictatorship and external domination have been helped to establish stable democracies and flourishing market economies. That is surely "soft" power in action and is achieving admirable and noble objectives in countries whose capacity to achieve those objectives on their own had not previously been too obvious, to put it politely. Of course, at the same time, there are costs which have to be borne by the existing members and we should not flinch from that. Listening to reasoned debates over the budgetary costs of the new member states in your Lordships' House yesterday and this afternoon, hearing phrases such as, "Why should we help to build the Warsaw Underground?", I detect distant echoes of that most deplorable of statements by a British Prime Minister, when he described Czechoslovakia as a,
	"faraway country of which we know little".
	I hope that we are not going to head back in that direction again.
	To conclude, the Bill that we are discussing today deserves our wholehearted support. Romania and Bulgaria will be welcome new members so long as they keep up and intensify their struggle against their own internal demons, among them corruption and organised crime. I confess that I was startled by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that they should not be asked to accept the whole acquis communautaire. I am not sure that it is well appreciated that in such countries the acceptance of the acquis communautaire actually liberates them from the structures that they had before. The acquis communautaire contains legislation infinitely more liberal than what they had before. I am afraid to say that, even if it were not likely to take the whole of the noble Lord's Christmas holiday to work out which bits of the acquis communautaire they should and should not be let off, it would not be a good idea.
	In any case, I hope that we can also from this debate send out a clear signal of our support for the further enlargement of the European Union beyond those two countries. This wider issue should surely be debated on the Floor of the House before too long, perhaps on the basis of a report from your Lordships' European Union Select Committee.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I join in the general chorus of approval, however qualified it was in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and join wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said about the need for the Government to be an advocate in terms of enlargement and indeed of the success of the European Union generally. I follow the Minister in saying that the Bill is relatively narrow in scope: first, it implements the treaty of accession of Bulgaria and Romania and, secondly, it provides for freedom of movement for workers from those two countries.
	After the fall of communism, those two countries enjoyed public support in their principal aim fully to join in the Euro-Atlantic structures. They joined NATO last year and will become full members of the European Union on 1 January 2007 or in 2008. That has been decided. It should be welcomed in spite of renewed questions about their readiness, particularly in the case of the lack of movement for part of this year in respect of Bulgaria. Their accession is in the context of greater questions about the enlargement potential of the Union as a whole. I join in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who is always worth listening to on this and other subjects.
	Logically, if there is a Europe, there is a non-Europe. Even the word "Europe" in the treaty has to be defined, but it cannot be defined too largely. The former French Commissioner Claude Cheyson once told me, on returning from a visit to Mongolia, that it was enquiring about EU membership.
	What defines our Europe? It is partly values, but that would include Norway and Switzerland. It is partly geography, and partly history, but that history might also include parts of north Africa if we consider the Roman empire. If there is a case for a privileged relationship at the borders, it will have to be considered as part of the debate that will take place over the next year.
	It is clear that enlargement will make the European Union very different from the vision of the founding fathers. All the new countries in prospect carry greater risks than the core Europe and the Europe of the earlier accessions in terms of their adherence to the rule of law, internal stability, corruption, organised crime and free markets. Yet clearly, our Europe has an interest in stability at our borders, wherever they are drawn. It is true that the prospect of membership and the gravitational pull of core Europe has had a wholly beneficial effect on those countries at its borders, including Bulgaria and Romania. Yet some of those doubts on enlargement clearly led to the referenda results in France and the Netherlands in the summer. The effects of enlargement played a key role in the debate and provoked debates about a two-tier Europe, which led, for example, to the contribution to the current debate of the Belgian premier, Mr Verhofstadt, suggesting that the euro-zone should take on a more political dimension, which would have interesting consequences for us and other countries—also incidentally for the prospects of countries such as Turkey.
	There is a debate. Indeed, the Financial Times on 16 December reported that a specific part of the communiqué would be to have a freeze on further enlargement. The only reference that I can see is in the context of the decision on the candidacy status of Macedonia. Paragraph 25 of the report says that,
	"further steps will have to be considered in the light of the debate on the enlargement strategy, as provided by the Council conclusions of 12 December 2005".
	That paragraph continues:
	"The absorption capacity of the Union also has to be taken into account".
	In any event, it would be wrong to talk about a freeze. There will be no movement in respect of Macedonia over the next year. Croatia will proceed in any event. It therefore seems appropriate to have time for reflection during either the Austrian or Finnish presidency. Clearly there is a group within the Union, including France, Spain, Germany, Portugal and Ireland, that is asking fundamental questions about not so much borders but future enlargement generally.
	How do Bulgaria and Romania measure up? It is convenient to deal with them together, yet they have different problems. Until earlier this year Bulgaria was in the lead, but Romania had been moving steadily. It would probably be realistic to talk of differentiation if the Commission were to conclude in April or May of next year that one or other had not moved substantially. But I have some doubts about whether that would be politically possible. It is clear that the jolt to Bulgaria given by the Commission's opinions and conclusions in October has had a salutary effect in moving Bulgaria from, if not a complacent attitude, at least a belief that it can coast along.
	The working assumption must be that, by the time the Commission comes to make its reports in the spring of next year, the two countries will have moved along sufficiently substantially. In any event, there are fallback provisions, not only in the unique proposal by the Finnish delegation for a possible one-year delay but also in the continuing possibility of exempting from full membership certain areas of policy. For example, in terms of food safety, we could say that we would not accept agricultural exports from those countries if we were not convinced about their procedures for ensuring food safety. But there should be a sufficient jolt or stimulus to ensure, as should be the case, that those countries will be full members of the Union at the appropriate time.
	Clearly, they are historically part of a European dimension. Bulgaria has Greek and Slavic roots and Romania was a province of Dacia in the Roman empire. I understand that Romanian is the closest of the Romance languages to Latin. Indeed, I understand that there was even a Dacian regiment on parade holding Hadrian's Wall, and no doubt that has had an effect on part of the current population in Cumbria.
	Both countries have had the awful experience of dictatorship. Zhivkov was a slavish follower of the Soviet Union and Ceausescu was a Stalinist oriental despot of the worst type. Both countries are poor. Their GDP is one-third of that of the existing members of the EU, including the A10, and a quarter of that of the UK. It is difficult to see where either country would go if not to the Union. Both have made major strides since they moved from communism, and the spring report for Eurobarometer and the latest New Europe Barometer (NEB) survey have been quite favourable.
	In respect of Clause 2 of the Bill, the Eurobarometer report showed that for 60 per cent of Romanians the European Union is, first and foremost, about free movement of persons. That clearly has some relevance to the view of free movement which our Government will come to, including for the 1 million Moldovans of Romanian nationality. But, contrary to what the Opposition were saying at the time, it is clear that the accession of the 10 has been extremely beneficial, allowing our labour market to be more flexible in key areas where we were not providing, such as bus drivers and seasonal agricultural labour. In my judgment, it is right for the Government to leave the options for the Home Office and other relevant departments to decide in the light of all the circumstances, including the date of accession and the policies adopted by other governments.
	I come to my final point. The prospect of membership has already been a great dynamic for positive change, and we can reasonably assume that that is likely to continue. Major failings exist. They were set out in the Commission's October document and in the commentary by Commissioner Rehn, which was hard-hitting and rigorous. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that gives me confidence that the Commission will be equally rigorous and objective when it comes to make its report in April or May next year.
	But still something is left on trust. The process cannot now be stopped, but we cannot reverse the Kosovo formula and give status without standards. My understanding is that both countries have made substantial moves and that the Commission has struck the right balance. Accession will be of benefit to the European Union. There will be a form of probation until the spring of next year, but every indication is that the countries will succeed. It will be good for them and, indeed, it will be good for Europe. However, I hope that the current period of reflection envisaged in paragraph 25 of the European Council's report does not lead to an undue delay for the western Balkans, which, in my judgment, should properly be included as soon as practicable within our Union.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, the conventions of the House are that there is no vote on Second Reading, and I acknowledge that. If there were, it would certainly have my support, although I would wish to argue that the extension of the European Union cries aloud for major reforms to its institutions.
	My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford mentioned that he had recently been in Sofia. I heard that with great envy. Fifty years ago I paid my only ever visit to Bulgaria, to be a member of an international youth camp organised by the World Federation of Democratic Youth, which the Minister will realise at once was a communist front organisation. Had I been a member of the Labour Party, I would have been proscribed for such initiative. That I bare, but will take no further, as this is not the occasion for personal reminiscence.
	I want to make three points. I want to consider the geography of Europe in the light of the legislation. Secondly, I want to talk about the economics, particularly the problem of financing, as has been demonstrated vividly over recent days with the settling of the budget. Finally, I want to revert to the problem of the constitution.
	First of all, on the geography, as has been demonstrated, this is not a question of drawing the line. Charles Stewart Parnell once said that no man can halt the march of a nation, and we are rather in that mood as far as the European Union is concerned. I accept at once that this is not the end of the expansion of Europe.
	The treaty on the prospective accession of Romania and Bulgaria invites the immediate consideration of the expansion of the European Union to the south-west, to incorporate the Balkan territories whose prospective accession was discussed quite recently in the context of Croatia. I will go no further on that. This afternoon at least we can reflect that the whole question of Ukrainian membership becomes that much more live. My noble friend Lord Howell mentioned it, and I note that it is also the view of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. It is a great temptation. I share much of the cultural instincts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about seeing Europe not merely in economic and political terms, but also in cultural terms. I cannot see the Uniate church without feeling a strong sense of rapport.
	On the other hand, there is no doubt that that expansion will raise delicate issues with our immediate neighbourhood, with Russia. That is not an expansion that we can undertake without making full judgment of what will be the wider consequences. I leave it in those rather elliptical terms, which are none the less very real.
	I now turn for a moment to the question of finance. I am not going to join the general chorus of applause and doom that has attended the recent budget negotiations. I think that the Prime Minister had a difficult hand to play, and I am not among his foremost critics. Are we really to suppose that the common agricultural policy will be that much easier to dismantle on account of the accession of these two countries? I rather doubt it. They both have strong agricultural interests, which they will be determined to protect. That is as I understand it. Can the Minister indicate what are the kinds of reform that the Government have in mind in respect of the common agricultural policy that can then encompass the interests of Romania and Bulgaria? Does he foresee the single payments, which will be at the heart of agricultural expenditure over the period we are surveying, being subject to a reduction? That course is advised by an academic writing in the Times today; it is over the brow of the future, but it will become part of the immediate consequences when we discuss the implied accession of Romania and Bulgaria.
	Secondly, and probably of equal challenge to the prudent financing of the European Union, is the question of accession payments. I quite understand that every eastern European country which is joining the European Union needs some kind of Marshall aid. But it should be kept as modest as possible; above all, it should be seen as a transitional payment. I say this because I believe that those countries will make their way in the European family largely by virtue of their own exertions. They have the basic advantage that whatever may have been the misfortunes of communist rule, education was not a casualty. Therefore, their sheer nationhood and population are formidable weapons in adjusting to the economic patterns of western Europe.
	There is a certain paradox here: the more we welcome the movement of labour—and I do—the more we realise that quite often the people who will come to the West from eastern Europe could do a tremendous task in raising standards in their own country. Very often, those who come to the West are among the most enterprising and achieving. I do not wish to establish any barrier against that free movement of labour, but we would find ourselves caught in the most dreadful problem if we had to make substantial budgetary payments to eastern Europe on account of the migration of their best westwards.
	I do not wish to be confrontational, but I see, hidden in the situation, the prospect of trying to resolve all the difficulties by having recourse to higher spending. We understand that the deal was eventually brokered last week by a modest addition to the Community budget. I promise that when the Prime Minister goes before the European Parliament this afternoon he will be confronted by cries for a much more ambitious budget. Of course the European Parliament will call for a more ambitious budget because those are not the politicians who will have to confront the taxpayer with the consequences. The split between the institutions of the Community and the long-standing institutions of nation states will become much more sensitive as we approach the situation of greater and greater spending on accession assistance.
	The Commission, helpfully at this stage of the argument—I quote from today's Evening Standard—is proposing a European tax, which would be levied by the institutions of the European Union and collected direct from the taxpayers of individual countries. That is like advising someone with a common cold to seek the cure for bubonic plague. I cannot think of anything that would give rise to more antagonism and disillusionment towards the idea of a European partnership.
	That takes me to my third point—the constitution. My noble friend Lord Howell said that it had sunk and settled on the seabed. Well, I have news for him. Angela Merkel, replete in a Mae West suit, is floating, and now swimming hard for the shore. I quote from the grand coalition's reform programme:
	"We pledge to continue the ratification of the European constitutional treaty after the first half of 2006 and to give new impulses to [the ratification] under the German presidency in the first half of 2007".
	We have been given appropriate notice.
	I think we are all agreed that the present institutional arrangements are not appropriate for a Europe expanding way beyond what was ever within the conception of the founding fathers. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, wants a good debate on the Floor of this Chamber. That is fine, but it is inevitable that that debate will be carried to the British public. That pattern has already been accepted. If we have any vision for Europe, it must be a performance that will appeal as much to the man in the street as the man in the London club.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, with whom I had my first disagreement on Europe well over 50 years ago.
	It is fitting that a historian like myself should be among those who rejoice—to use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in another connection—at the prospect of welcoming Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, may be remembered as having said in a neglected passage in her speech at Bruges in 1988 that it was essential for us in western Europe to keep a candle burning to light the way of such countries as these we are talking about towards liberty. I think we can say that, after 1988, that candle burned very well.
	These two countries have much in common. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, said, the territories of both were in the Roman Empire in the days of Trajan. It is fair to say that the recovery of those Roman borders has some relevance to what we are trying to do in Europe today. Both countries were, from the middle of the Middle Ages to about the middle of the nineteenth century, dependent on or subject to the Ottoman Empire in one way or another, while the Muslim armies of the Sultan swept on—not just once, but several times—towards Vienna, in a threat to Europe which must have seemed more alarming than Muslim fundamentalism does today.
	Both countries emerged from the night of Ottoman control in the late nineteenth century after the Congress of Berlin in 1878, in which two Members of this House, Lord Salisbury and Lord Beaconsfield, played a major part. That congress led to the formation of two small states, initially directed by German monarchs; one, a minor member of the Hohenzollern family; the other a Saxe-Coburg, a member of that extraordinary family which gave kings to Portugal, Belgium, even Britain, as well as Bulgaria. Both these states found it hard to survive from the time of their creation through the whirlwind of war and diplomatic struggles of the First and Second World Wars. Poor Romania was caused to fight against both Germany and Russia in the Second World War. Both states, it is important for those in this House to recall, were let down badly in 1945 by the western Allies, despite the Yalta conference's declaration on liberated Europe.
	One friend of mine, a member of the British military mission to Bulgaria in 1945, found that his first duty was to attend the execution of 68 parliamentarians. That assignment helped to make Malcolm Macintosh an especially acute observer of the Soviet military machine in subsequent years.
	No doubt because of Soviet brutality later on, both Bulgaria and Romania have shown astonishing lack of bitterness at the western failure of the immediate post-war years, a failure which resulted in the imprisonment or death of hundreds of admirable people who expected support from us. I mention only the name of the ex-Romanian Prime Minister Maniu.
	Though they have much in common, these two states also have many differences. For example, Romania maintained her contacts with the West—particularly France—through her Latin-based language. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned that point.
	Bulgaria's position should not be neglected. In the Middle Ages she constituted a major empire, a threat for a long time to Byzantium, and also preserved her orthodox Christianity during the long era of Ottoman control. Both Bulgaria and Romania have had close relations with Russia from the 16th century onwards for obvious geographical reasons, though Romania's were basically destructive. Bulgaria's—at least until the communist era—were usually benign.
	Modern Romania has constituted four territories: Moldavia and Wallachia which constituted the heart of the country after 1878; Bessarabia which after several improbable changes is now the independent state of Moldova; and Transylvania which was wrested from Hungary in 1919 under the Treaty of St Germain. Bulgaria has experienced fewer territorial changes, though she did lose a priceless outlet to the Aegean in 1919.
	Romania had oil, hence the German occupation of the 1940s. She also had both a fascist movement and a substantial Jewish minority which was later largely massacred. The cleverness of King Boris of Bulgaria should not be forgotten since he did much to save the admittedly smaller Jewish population of that country. However, Bulgaria did have the dubious honour of enduring the longest reign of any communist satrap, that of Zhivkov who was in power for 35 years in Sofia—just before the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, went there for the first time.
	In rejoicing at the likely entry of these two tragic but resilient countries into the European Union, there is one further thing that I should say. Throughout their history, both have been affected by their associations with larger enterprises, whether the Hapsburg, the Ottoman or even the Soviet empires. Thus they are not like the great nation states of western Europe such as ourselves, France, Spain, perhaps the Netherlands and Sweden which have enjoyed five centuries of untrammelled sovereignty and naturally find it more difficult to forget or neglect the attitudes so formed. Thus though Romania or Bulgaria could throw up European statesmen of importance—ex-King Simeon might turn out to be one—it is unlikely that they will aspire to lead Europe as France has or as Britain could have done.
	That brings me to comment—this may seem irrelevant but it is, all the same, important—that, like others, I have pondered on the reasons for the astonishing transformation of British politics over the past 20 years which has caused the party of Europe—which the Conservative Party was from about 1960 until 1988—to change places with the Labour Party, which until 1988 seemed, to say the least, unenthusiastic about associations with the European Union.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, touched on why he personally had moved from an old enthusiasm to a modern scepticism. But I think this change occurred for a different reason. I think that in about 1988 Conservative leaders realised that Britain had lost the chance to lead Europe—a chance which could have been theirs. Those who led this country into Europe—Lord Stockton, Sir Edward Heath, Lord Duncan-Sandys, for example—

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will give way.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, if I can finish my sentence I will sit down. Those leaders thought it would have been ours for the asking.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am enjoying—as I do always—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. But he suggested that I had moved. No. The European Union moved and those of us who believed in free markets and were against corporate socialism stayed where we were.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very clear explanation and I understand what he is saying. At all events, I regret that we did not bid to lead Europe in the era of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and I believe that many continental Europeans regret it too.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will forgive me, I shall not follow him down the path of historical analysis. I should like to come a little more up to date.
	I think it was on 1 May last year that the 10 countries joined the EU. I remember watching it on television—the ceremony took place in Dublin—and I found it a very moving occasion. It symbolised to me the way in which Europe was moving and how European enlargement was taking in, in that case, eight countries that had been under communism for 50 years.
	Of course there are people in eastern Europe who have said to me, "Don't we lose our national identity by joining the EU?" and I have said, "Not a bit of it. Look at Ireland". Ireland has become, if anything, more Irish since it joined the EU than it ever was before, with not a trace of loss of national identity. But I recall the plea of the then Slovenian Minister for European Integration at a meeting in the Palace. He said, "Look, 10 countries are about to join. Please do not treat us all as if we were the same. We are not identical countries; we each have our individual histories, our traditions and our present attitudes. Please treat us as individual members". It is in that spirit that I approach the accession of Bulgaria and Romania.
	I had the opportunity to visit Romania a few months ago, although I have not been in Bulgaria for about 12 or 14 years. Given that corruption is probably the number one problem facing Romania in its bid to join the EU, I found the Romanian Government's policy impressive and clear. I was particularly impressed by the Minister of Justice in Bucharest, who was very clear about what she was seeking to do to tackle corruption. But, as she admitted, corruption at the top level can be tackled and the Romanian Government can have clear policies, but it is a lot more difficult making sure that the anti-corruption drive works further down. I think the Romanian Government are determined to deal with it but it may not be as easy on the ground as it is at governmental level.
	I have had it said to me in more than one of the accession countries that joining the EU is making them introduce changes that they wanted to make anyway, but which have been given more of a political imperative, making things happen faster. The same applies to Romania. Of course the Romanians are very keen to join. They have said to me that it would be a disaster if their bid to join was delayed by one year. None of us wants that to be delayed, but, although undesirable, I would not have thought it would be the end of the world.
	My noble friend Lord Triesman spoke about the opportunities for British investment in these countries. I agree that the opportunities exist, but on my visits to Romania and to some of the countries which joined the EU last year, it was disappointing to find that British investment is a bit thin on the ground. For example, I was told that there was not a single British bank in Budapest, yet we lead the world in financial services. We are missing opportunities there. I hope that we will not miss so many in Romania and Bulgaria, although I fear that we do not have much on the ground there at present.
	I accept the view that Romania has to improve its marketing, particularly of its agricultural produce. It has simply not got to grips with the needs of modern supermarkets and modern countries. Indeed, Romania has to import some products from other countries even though it has perfectly excellent products of its own.
	My one serious criticism of Romania concerns the Roma minority there. Some months ago, our parliamentary delegation had the chance to visit a Roma village and a Roma school in that village. We spoke to both Roma people and Romanians. Romania will have to move forward if it is to give the Roma community a chance to lead a proper life in that country. The Roma still seem to suffer quite a lot of discrimination, not from the Government but at lower levels.
	I hope that Romania and Bulgaria will join in January next year. I also hope that we will deal with the rights of people from those countries to work in Britain as we have dealt with the right to work in Britain of the people of the 10 countries that joined us. It did us a great deal of good in the eyes of the countries in eastern Europe that joined that we allowed their people to come and work here, provided that there were jobs for them and that they were not coming for social security. I hope that a similar arrangement will apply for the people of Romania and Bulgaria.
	I am concerned that visa requirements still apply for Romania and Bulgaria. Will the Government drop those visa requirements in the process of those countries moving towards accession?
	Moldova's position is rather unusual because of its close relationship with Romania in both economic and social terms. It is my understanding that when Romania joins the EU, Moldova will be affected more adversely than has been any other country through its neighbour becoming a member of the EU. That is because the ties will be cut, with serious economic and social damage to Moldova. I hope that Brussels realises this and that it will look to provide some special support for Moldova to tide it over the difficult situation that it will be in when Romania joins.
	I understand that about one million Moldovans have a Romanian passport. Will my noble friend confirm that? If it is true, what will be the position of those people who live outside the EU, but who have a passport or citizenship of an EU country?
	I turn to the wider issues that stem from the Bill. It is good news that Croatia's difficulties with General Gotovina have been resolved with his arrest and that Croatia is now on the way to joining the EU. I was told that long delays in countries joining the EU have adverse effects on public opinion there. The Croatians were quite concerned that public opinion might turn against EU membership. I hope that, with the resolution of the difficulties pending the way to negotiations with Croatia, that problem has been dealt with. I am delighted that Macedonia has been mentioned as a candidate country just recently.
	I shall say a brief word about Turkey. I am a strong supporter of Turkish membership of the EU. I was delighted when the Government secured with our European partners the opening of the doors to Turkey, even though it will take some years before that happens. I am therefore disappointed, as a friend of Turkey, about the Orhan Pamuk case, where, just a few days ago, a world-famous novelist has been up in court on charges that, frankly, could not stand up in any EU country. I was surprised that they were not thrown out by the Turkish court. He allegedly insulted his country by making statements about Turkey as regards, I believe, Armenia. Friends of Turkey—of whom there are many in Britain, although not quite so many in other EU countries—are disappointed by this, and of course it is ammunition for Turkey's opponents. I hope the Turkish authorities will drop this case very quickly.
	The question that has been asked, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is: what about further enlargement? How do we move forward? The governance issue will certainly have to be tackled sooner or later, as more countries join. We are managing at the moment, although not as well as we might had we had the new constitution, but we will have to revisit that. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will give some encouragement.
	There is no need at this stage to decide specifically how much further Europe should go. It is perfectly sensible to deal with that pragmatically. A number of countries are in the pipeline, and we do not have to decide how much further Europe will go. It becomes a philosophical question, rather than a practical political one. Of course, other countries are interested: Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia and others. At some point Europe will have to decide whether those countries are on the path to full membership or to a closer association with Europe.
	These countries on the borders of Europe clearly wish to adopt our values of freedom, human rights and democracy. If Europe does not welcome them, we are giving them no choice but to associate more closely with countries to their east that are not democratic. I believe such an outcome would pose a much greater threat to Europe than our being welcoming to Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia, as well as to other countries on the borders of Europe that wish to espouse our values.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support this Bill, although I must say to the Minister that the one argument I felt was not dreadfully compelling was that it enabled Tesco to go marching across the Continent. Although the treaty of accession has been signed by Romania, Bulgaria and the other member states, I know those two countries will be anxious to hear that the treaty has in effect been ratified by the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the passing of this Bill.
	I must declare an interest, in that earlier this year I was a guest at the Romanian senate for three days. The people who were kind enough to see me when I was in Romania emphasised just how important membership is for the process of reform. Those with whom I spoke, including their former negotiator in Brussels, did not view the European Union in quite such depressing terms as my noble friend Lord Howell—who unfortunately is not here—described it this afternoon.
	As has been said, the treaty envisages the possibility of the accession date being delayed until 2008. Everyone I spoke to said that such a delay would have a profound effect on the work that was being done to bring the country to the standard required by membership. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the problem Croatia had with General Gotovina. When their accession process stalled briefly, public support plummeted, although, happily, I believe it has come back. I found in Romania that there were worries that the decisions on accession might be more political than objective, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, and that the European Council might not be looking closely at how far Romania had been able to meet its obligations.
	We were told when we were there, and people we spoke to accepted, that there were problems with administration and judicial reform, competition and environmental issues. However, they all emphasised that the reform had been accelerated through the prospect of joining the European Union. At that time, in the summer, the government's efforts were focused on judicial reform and competition policy. There were still problems with the judiciary. The relevant Bills on competition had gone through parliament but there was a need to ensure that they were enforced.
	Others to whom we spoke referred to the large rural population, who hoped that the European Union could offer advantages since, they believed, Romania was more competitive than many CAP countries. Apparently Romania does not subsidise agriculture at present, although it imports subsidised goods. Accession would help to create a fairer playing field. There was a need to change the agricultural pattern from one of subsistence farming to a market economy. Interestingly, they foresaw farms getting bigger yet remaining organic. Everyone agreed that Romania clearly needed to implement all its commitments to join the EU, but that the actions taken have been costly in some areas. It was therefore important that it proceeded. Others whom I met said that the economics of accession were less important than the message that integration would send to the public and to investors, and that the process of change was quicker if you were inside an institution, where certain objectives had to be met.
	It is critical that the problems of the constitutional treaty, whether it sits on the bottom of the sea or not—and we should recall that there are often successful expeditions to salvage the best of what has been sunk—are not allowed to stand in the way of enlargement, particularly in the case of the western Balkans. It is, as other noble Lords have said, a driver for peace and stability in all countries. Macedonia's acceptance as a candidate country at last weekend's European Council was important. I hope that the enlargement strategy paper, which has changed the rules since the last enlargement round, will not be used as a political weapon to delay and restrict enlargement. Dashed hopes in the western Balkans could have disastrous results.
	I suspect that the presidency conclusions of 15 and 16 December to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred could be used to delay all future enlargements—especially, the sentence which refers to:
	"The absorption capacity of the Union",
	which,
	"has to be taken into account".
	If the European Union, and in particular its large member states, were to play with the hopes of the countries in the western Balkans—never mind those that are the subject of the European neighbourhood policy—it would be not only unfair but, in my view, also potentially dangerous for Europe.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Triesman. Since we joined the European Union, there has been a stream of new and successful enlargements. We had, successively, Greece, Spain and Portugal moving us up to a community of 12 members; then Sweden, Austria and Finland moving us up to 15; then, last year, the 10 new countries acceded, taking us up to 25. Now we have Romania and Bulgaria and, waiting in a line, Turkey, Macedonia and, possibly, Croatia.
	Everybody seems to want to join the European Union. No politicians are seriously griping anywhere across the Union, other than here in the United Kingdom—where we seem to have more than our fair share. In welcoming the proposed enlargement the noble Lord, Lord Howell, sounded about as enthusiastic as Scrooge welcoming Christmas. I think he was having one of his bad days today; I much preferred the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who seemed enthusiastic indeed about what he was supporting.
	Yesterday saw parts of the United Kingdom at their worst; mainly, those parts represented on the Conservative Benches in both Houses. They profess to want to be in Europe, to want to support enlargement and to want policies that support economic reform in eastern Europe. They want to do everything but pay their fair share of the bill for that process.
	Perhaps the worst service ever done to serious discussion of Europe was that performed by a former prime ministerial demand that we want our money back. That demand reduced Europe in so many people's minds to a balance-sheet exercise and yet most of the real benefits have been seen in the political and security consequences of many of the successive enlargements to which I have referred.
	In Greece, we saw the return to democracy following the overthrow of a military junta and the membership of the European Union underpinned that democracy. In Spain and Portugal we saw the replacement of General Franco and Salazar by newly emergent, political democracies, again fully underpinned by their membership of the European Union. Even when we saw successful, economically prosperous, net-contributor countries joining—countries such as Sweden, Austria and Finland—we saw them all face up to very real political problems about their different sorts of neutrality and decided, despite the views that at one time they had thought were obstacles to them joining the European Union, that their global political and economic influence should be expressed by membership of the European Union.
	The more recently liberated-from-the-shackles-of-communism applicants all sought to re-establish their sovereignty and democracy within the framework of that same European Union. They are our natural allies, sharing our view of Europe. They did not reject the centralisation of the former Soviet Union by seeking to join a European Union that would then be one in which they surrendered their new-found freedom and their new-found independence to the centre at Brussels—no more will Bulgaria or Romania. Like us, they want to remain members of a Union of sovereign nation states.
	My noble friend Lord Triesman was correct and proper to emphasise that what we have before us in this Bill is not a fully done deal, based on the assumption that both countries will automatically join the European Union on 1 January 2007. There is the possibility for either or both to be delayed for a year. Our obligation is to ensure that the serious work is continued. We must ensure that the process of economic liberalisation, the necessary judicial reforms, the tackling of the environmental problems, and dealing with the problems of corruption and organised crime are continued. In that role both we and the European Commission must assist in those and other problems. It is correct that it is far more important to get the accession right than to get it quickly.
	The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, in a fascinating and very interesting speech, sounded an important warning to his friends on his Front Bench on the views of Angela Merkel. She sounded some very interesting views as well. I was fascinated to see the letter she has reportedly sent to Mr David Cameron, looking forward to close co-operation with him within the framework of the European People's Party. I am not sure whether it was that letter that led to the appearance in today's Independent of a full-page article, which, I noticed at the bottom, in small print, said it was co-financed by Conservative MEPs and the European People's Party, which they are supposed to be about to leave. Or is that just another view that is about to be jettisoned under the kind of pressure from Mrs Merkel? However, the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, was right to emphasise that institutional questions have to be tackled. They needed to be tackled after the enlargement to 25, and they are as imperative as ever, if not more so.
	I remain an unapologetic supporter of the outcome of the Convention on the Future of Europe. The institutional proposals in that convention are infinitely preferable to those that we have in the Treaty of Nice. We have to face up clearly to what we are going to do in relation to the institutional proposals that came from the Convention on the Future of Europe which suit an enlargement much more satisfactorily than those that we have had to revert to in the Treaty of Nice.
	We used to hear a great deal about fortress Europe, about Europe being a rich man's club, about Europe being introspective. Enlargements have given the lie to those allegations and so does this Bill, which, I believe deserves our full support and shows Europe as being the preferred way of all these newly democratic European countries to be able to express their own aspirations within the framework of the economic and political stability that the European Union gives them. I support the Bill.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill. Looking at the Bill in its full length and complexity reminds me of the benefits of being mainly concerned with foreign affairs in this House. I took part in a Second Reading debate of one of the Home Office Bills the other week and I did my best, as I looked through it—through Article 60 and Article 80 and further—to appreciate how much harder, in legislative terms, my colleagues on other policy teams have to work. When I picked up the Company Law Reform Bill the other day, that was an entirely different matter.
	The careful balance of the European Union's approach to enlargement, particularly with reference to Bulgaria and Romania, seems to me entirely the right approach: that we should welcome the European states which move successfully through the painful transition from authoritarian regimes and state-run economies to open economies and democratic government into membership. However, we should, at the same time, insist that they meet the necessary political, economic and administrative conditions required for membership.
	Enlargement has been the most successful foreign policy that the European Union has conducted over the past 25 to 30 years. I can remember visiting Portugal, Greece and Spain in the mid-1970s as they began to move away from authoritarianism and it is astonishing how far—Portugal in particular—they have moved. The quality of Greek administration today and so on and so forth all owe a lot to their membership of the European Union, which helped a great deal. We have seen the same with the eight east European countries that have already joined and we are following the same path with Romania and Turkey. We need to do the same with the rest of south-eastern Europe: with Croatia and with the other countries of the western Balkans. We are attempting to do the same with Turkey.
	This is not a distant part of Europe. I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, reminding us of the Bruges speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in which she spoke of eastern Europe being very much part of our Europe and which we had to look forward to coming into our Europe. That is what we are now very much working on. As he went through his historical dimensions, I was thinking about how much the history and population of eastern Europe is tied in to our own country. Every time I visit my father-in-law's grave in Bradford with my wife, I see the Polish section and the Ukrainian section of the same graveyard, carefully tended.
	I used to have many enjoyable conversations with Lord Roll, long-since departed, about Ruthenia and his time growing up there. This is not a distant area about which we know so little, although I am not entirely sure about Dacian regiments and whether or not those of us whose ancestors come from southern Scotland should count Dacia as part of our blood. Furthermore, one does have to remember, as we play around with where we think Europe stops, that the Emperor Charles IV settled all those Saxons in those towns in Transylvania to defend the boundaries of Europe, as he saw them, against the barbarians coming in from the east again.
	We have to be very careful about further enlargement beyond this. I disagree with some noble Lords who have spoken. We have some difficulty with populations in other western European countries—I spent some time in the Netherlands during and after their referendum—where there is some resistance to enlargement. If we are to hold to the line on the western Balkans and on Turkey we must discuss how much enlargement carries on thereafter. There are those who talk not only about the Ukraine but the southern Caucasus. The Government and their partners in Europe need to talk about how we make the ineffective neighbourhood policy that the European Union is now pursuing more valuable—about how a broader European economic area and political consultation is put into effect.
	Various noble Lords have mentioned costs. The costs are relatively modest. They, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Howell, did not talk much about the benefits and the investment in stability and security which assisting these countries to move towards open market economies and effective and non-corrupt administrations provide for us. We now spend half as much on defence as we did 20 years ago. This is investment in our security in a different sense.
	The budget deal that we have just achieved was not too bad. I have two criticisms of it; first, that the British Government should have avoided offending our natural allies in eastern Europe—the Poles, the Czechs and the Slovaks—with our proposals before the final stages to cut what was transferred to those countries; and, secondly, that the Government should have used the occasion to argue not only for sharper changes in structural funds towards the new members, but that more money needs to be spent from the common budget on foreign policy regarding countries outside and around Europe with which we share common interests.
	I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howell, following what seemed to be the Daily Mail's "misery agenda", as it is now called. The noble Lord, Lord Turner, said the other day that the difference between the free market in Europe and the free market in the United States was that in Europe we regulate, but in the United States they litigate. The costs of litigation in the US are absurdly high, so there is something to be said for our level of regulation.
	Clause 2 refers to the free movement of labour, which is a delicate issue that we must all be concerned with. It is difficult to extrapolate long-term migration flows from short-term migration flows. In the past year there has been a significant surge of people into the United Kingdom, but the net figures for the previous year were negative and it is not clear whether last year's surge will be maintained for the next 10 to 20 years. I note that in Spain, Greece and Portugal, the flows of migration that accompanied their moves towards the European Union were reversed as they became more prosperous. All three are now countries of net immigration, rather than net emigration. Most of those who came to the European Union in the process of accession have since gone home. I anticipate that the same will happen in Poland, the Czech Republic and others. Yet again, that is a reason for us to invest in helping them towards greater prosperity.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, should be careful about following the MigrationWatch agenda in this respect, which provides us with the worst possible extrapolations of current trends. After all, the principles of the free market rest on the four fundamental freedoms of trade, services, capital and labour. I hope that liberals—and I understand that the Conservative Party is moving in their direction—interfere with those freedoms as little as possible. The conditions are important. I note that in the other place the Minister for Europe said that accession was not yet a fait accompli. I now understand that to mean that it is not simply a question of whether there will be a delay of one year, but that accession itself is not yet absolutely guaranteed.
	The European Union rests on the quality of national regulation, national courts, national policing and national and local administration. That is what holds together the single market and our shared political and social space in Europe. It is important to maintain that, which is what the Copenhagen conditions do. The Commission's comprehensive monitoring report in October 2005 expressed serious concerns about corruption and organised crime in both Bulgaria and Romania. From visits to both countries I am aware that there is a degree of overlap between organised crime and corrupt administration. People talk about the "deep state" with reference to Turkey; certainly, people in Sofia have talked to me about the deep state in terms of the links between some aspects of the administration and organised crime. I read the report on the problems of Bulgarian court procedures and the case of Michael Shields, which Louise Ellman has raised in the other place.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what would happen next and how would we know what was to happen next. Here it is in the Commission's comprehensive monitoring report: the Commission will present to the Council and Parliament in April/ May 2006 and may recommend that the Council postpone the accession if there is a serious risk of any of those states being manifestly unprepared to meet the requirements of membership by January 2007. The Commission will make a proposal and the Council will reach a decision; this is the normal way things operate. The two states will be treated separately. I should like to say in passing that I note that the British Government have given high compliment to the quality of the Commission's work on enlargement. This is and remains one of the best areas of Commission work. I think we may all have particular confidence in Olli Rehn, who has a British PhD and I can recommend to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, his thesis on the political economy of small states in a globalised open market. It is the sort of thing I am sure he would enjoy reading; I speak as a former supervisor.
	Conditionality standards and the current member states are something that we might wish to touch upon. Some of us have some concerns about whether Italy fully meets current standards in terms of the quality and diversity of its free media, the problems of its financial corruption and even, perhaps, the independence of the judiciary from the government. I touch on that only in passing. We on these Benches welcome this Bill. British interests are clearly served by further enlargement to the eastern and western Balkans. This is about our stability and our security. For that the Government have strong support from these Benches.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, like my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford warmly welcome this Bill and am grateful to the Minister for moving the Second Reading. It has been a fascinating debate; we have heard the history of Bulgaria and Romania, slightly potted, from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, personal experiences from my noble friend Lord Biffen, and other noble Lords' experiences. With your Lordships' tolerance, I will concentrate mainly on Bulgaria. I go back to the start of its European Union aspirations, because I took the Bulgarian Europe agreements through the European Parliament in the 1990s, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, reminded us. I declare an added interest in Bulgaria as a governor of the American University in Blagoevgrad. The degree of consensus on these Benches and in the other place is extremely pleasing and, I hope, represents the widespread appreciation both of what the European Union can do for Bulgaria and Romania, and what they can do for us.
	A Bulgarian friend of mine pointed out with great pride the enormous achievements of young Bulgarians worldwide. Their international achievements include world-class opera singers, mathematicians, chess players, computer programmers and so forth. There is no doubt that, once accepted, both Bulgaria and Romania will play a significant and constructive role in the European Union on our populations, economies and cultural wealth. They will also have significant power within the European Union institutions, with Bulgaria wielding the same number of votes as Austria—10—in the Council, and of seats—12—in the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, and the European Parliament—17. Romania, because of its larger population, will have even more.
	The experience of the last round of accessions, where not just two but 10 countries were accepted with similar potential for success and failure, has been very positive. I see few reasons to believe that this round of accessions will not go equally as successfully. However, there are areas that are worrying. Despite Bulgaria and Romania having GDP growth rates significantly above the EU average, both have GDPs of around a third of the EU average. Both countries have done a commendable job in squeezing in all the acquis communautaire laws in order to comply with the EU deadlines. But the laws now need to be implemented. Specifically, the Bulgarians must revise their judicial system and make certain that at long last criminals are sentenced and accordingly sent to gaol. It is unacceptable that so far not a single boss of the criminal world is sitting behind bars.
	The European Parliament has already demanded greater effort in stamping out such crimes. The European Union, too, still has to make the necessary institutional reforms as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Biffen to cope with the present and future enlargements. The sheer enormity of the task facing the European Union and the tasks facing these two countries make their preparations for 2007 seem a Herculean task. Ten years ago this month, the European Council took the decision to let Bulgaria become a European Union member when it met the political and economic criteria, regardless of its place in the queue, up to 2007. That was a huge spur and encouragement. It also presented a steep hill to climb. We should congratulate the Bulgarian people on having strived so diligently, despite having suffered great hardship along the way, to meet the requirements. They are nearly there.
	We must use every method possible in the time left to us to encourage these countries to fulfil the requirements and prepare themselves effectively for their accession. The alternative, so rightly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is unthinkable. I wish them both the best of luck and I end by returning to Clause 1. We on these Benches urge that the ratification of the treaty and that of the Bill go through Parliament as quickly and as smoothly as possible.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I start by welcoming the spirit in which this debate has been conducted—irrefutable evidence were it ever to have been needed that Bulgaria and Romania will be welcomed, for the most part certainly, into the European Union by the United Kingdom as friends and equal partners. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke very clearly on behalf of their respective parties and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for pointing out that this is a brief Bill—small but, I think, perfectly formed.
	As I said earlier, the United Kingdom has always been a strong supporter of enlargement, and it is not difficult to see why. Successive UK governments have supported enlargement because it has brought security, stability, and prosperity to our Continent.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made the vital point about the passage of history and the general state of development. That is reflected in Article 49 of the treaty of the European Union. It offers the prospect of membership to any European state. There may be feelings on all sides about how far Europe has stretched, but I feel that the discussion needs to go a little beyond generalisations into real-life issues, as my noble friend Lord Dubs urged.
	Enlargement works, as it has done for all the accession countries. It has worked for us, and restrictive policies have not been a credible approach to the issues of security and prosperity. It is vital to carry it forward. We need regular reports and discussions on the west Balkans, Turkey and Croatia, as well as Bulgaria and Romania. It should not be a small discussion in a private garden. The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Wallace, reflected the scope of this joint project of discussion. The enlargement agenda is packed. Bulgaria and Romania are making preparations for membership. Turkey and Croatia are in negotiation. Further integration and discussion is taking place on the western Balkans. All recognise the importance of the work, but it is also important to communicate the benefits of enlargement and to ensure that public opinion understands what those processes are about.
	Let us take, for example, last year's accession of the 10 eastern and central European states—those to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, drew particular attention. My noble friend was quite right. The prospect of membership unquestionably helped to boost their economies in the run-up to accession. Membership has been achieved, and we can see the advantages. Growth rates are as high as 8.3 per cent in Latvia and 5.3 per cent in Poland. It is a virtuous circle. High growth provides job opportunities and helps to raise living standards in the new member states, and provides new trade and investment opportunities for the United Kingdom. Since May 2004 British businesses have had access to a market with 70 million more consumers. I am sure that Tesco is taking some advantage of that, and I guess a good many others are, too. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania will add a further 30 million to that growing market.
	My noble friend Lord Tomlinson identified the value of seeing the benefits and putting them into the picture. How appropriate it is to lead through those advantages to a discussion on security. In particular, I welcome the way in which my noble friend introduced the security issue by focusing on how the fall of dictators and the recovery from decades of dictatorship have enhanced our security. Greece, Spain and Portugal saw that extreme Right dictatorships could have that legacy eradicated by understanding how Germany had developed inside the EU. I have little doubt that communist dictatorships came to have to face their people's understanding of the nature of those dictatorships because they, too, could see from those examples the value of living in a totally different way.
	Enlargement also means that we can live in a more secure Europe with closer co-operation on border control and on tackling organised crime. New member states have brought experience and knowledge to specific regional problems. Their expertise has enabled us to get one step ahead of the drug and human trafficking gangs working through eastern Europe. A good example was the arrest of sex traffickers in Sheffield in October, which came about through specific co-operation with new member state police forces.
	Enlargement also means the accelerated adoption of human rights and democratic standards that we have established in Europe right across the Continent. Let us not forget that only 15 years ago people had to take to the streets in many countries across central and eastern Europe to demand those changes. Since then, the prospect of European Union membership has driven and supported political developments of the kind that we have discussed this afternoon. For many eastern Europeans, EU membership represents the final step in their country's transformation from dictatorship to democracy.
	Thankfully, Romania and Bulgaria are coming to what may be the end of their journeys. We will judge it but that is what I hope. Their paths have not been easy. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, reminded us of the depth of their historical struggle and, not least, of the obligation that we owe for the failure to recognise what was needed in 1945—a point made with great force. More work still needs to be done. But the significant changes that have already taken place are a credit to the vision, energy and determination of the peoples and Governments of Romania and Bulgaria, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, the dynamics of change are bound up in all those things. That is a powerful point on which to reflect when the discussion on the western Balkans becomes significant. In my judgment, the noble Lord is 100 per cent right to say that, as we go forward, we must not play with people's aspirations; we must be serious about them. I welcome that point.
	Perhaps I may address some of the questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was kind enough to give me some indication of his speech, and I appreciate that. I was asked who will make the key judgments on whether the negotiations should be suspended for one year. The Commission will produce another monitoring report. I take comfort from the quality of its reports thus far, and it will report in April or May 2006 on the preparedness of Bulgaria and Romania for accession. On the basis of those findings, the negotiations on one or both countries will be delayed if there are outstanding areas of concern. It will then be for the Council to make the decision on whether to defer the accession of the offending state or states. In practice, the Commission is unlikely to recommend delay if there is no political support or cause for such a recommendation.
	The key judgments will be made in the way that I have described. The single market and JHA safeguard clauses allow the Commission to impose protective measures to correct difficulties in the initial three years after accession. Member states can request that the Commission takes appropriate measures to address a particular concern, or the Commission can act on its own initiative, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly pointed out.
	I was asked whether there would be an open procedure. I believe that there will be. The reports will all be published and they will be very visible. I have no doubt that we will debate them in your Lordships' House on every occasion that noble Lords feel it is appropriate to do so.
	I was asked whether the countries can appeal against the safeguards. There is no appeal procedure but I believe that the conditions set out are well understood. They have been signed by Bulgaria and Romania and I think that they understand the procedures involved.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that there is no significant additional public expenditure. The EU expenditure is capped over each financial perspective and there will be budgetary limits. The enlargement of Bulgaria and Romania will therefore not involve additional costs above those agreed by the United Kingdom. But of course the redistribution of structural and cohesion funds to the A10 states and to Bulgaria and Romania over the course of the next financial perspective will see the EU 15 states accessing less than they would have done in previous years.
	A question was raised about the Home Office's predictions of the number of workers moving across Europe. I should say that the figures came from a paper and research from University College, London. I have no doubt that that was carried out in the best way possible. As we enter the next phase, I think I can say that the research methodology has probably improved—one always hopes that that is the case with research methodology in general.
	I welcome the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the flow of people in Europe has moved backward and forward and has reflected market conditions. That is because it is a market economy and this is a market. That is what happens in markets, and that is what we always wanted of the European Union. As I said, at the moment no decision has been taken on possible restrictions or subsequent access to public funds in the light of the decisions because obviously we will need to know more about numbers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, raised the issue of the impact on common agricultural policy arrangements. Enlargement does not destroy the prospects of CAP reform, difficult as those prospects have been shown to be in recent weeks. The accession treaty makes provision to adapt the parts that relate to CAP where that is required by further enlargement before accession.
	The Bulgarians have stated that they would like to go through our ideas on CAP reform, and that they want to work with us on moving towards a more rural development approach than the current CAP arrangements. The radical reforms of 2003 and 2004 mean that the CAP is now less trade-distorting and less environmentally damaging, but I would be the first to say that there is still a great deal of work to be done. I acknowledge that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, also described the financial arrangements as a kind of Marshall aid and as more desirable if they were transitional payments. Let me say that the negotiations—your Lordships will have seen that the figures are important—have come about because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, has just reminded us, the economic circumstances of those catching up are important. They are still very much poorer. They still need to come to a position where they can compete on a level basis. Their people are half as wealthy as the rest of Europe. That is a big gap to make up. It may be difficult. All negotiations are, but the accession countries have welcomed the outcome in the last few days.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that of course it was a sharp discussion—it was a negotiation. I seem to have spent quite a lot of my life doing negotiations. One of the things that I have learned about them is that for much of the process there is very little cuddling involved. Actually, as you get a little beyond that, post-agreement, recovery is usually pretty rapid, because everyone understands that strong positions are taken during that process.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the context of saying that delay would not be a disaster if problems were still to be overcome, asked a bit more about the corruption issue. I am afraid that both countries, given their poor rankings in the Transparency International 2005 corruption index, have to face big challenges. The goal of accession will, I think, drive the changes. The simple fact is that it will have to drive the changes. Not least, constant inspection will be needed to ensure that EU funds themselves are not lost to corruption. That would be a double travesty. The Commission is to pay the closest attention to this, and our embassy liaison staff are working with others on the anti-crime issues, including money laundering and other sorts of crime. It may well be that money laundering is one of the reasons that the banking system has been difficult to encourage on the ground.
	Certainly more work is also needed on discrimination against the Roma. We discussed it recently in the House, so I will not say anything in huge detail, but the Commission is bound to take that issue into account. A proper platform of human rights is invaluable and cannot be ignored.
	The number of applications for Romanian citizenship from Moldovan nationals is low. Since 2002, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, 2,355 Moldavians citizens have been granted Romanian citizenship, based on figures provided by the Ministry of the Interior.
	The points I made about banking investment do not, I am happy to say, apply to other kinds of investment. Vodafone has acquired the Romanian mobile phone company earlier this year, for €2.5 billion. UK exports to Romania in 2004 were up 19 per cent on the previous year, to a value of about £606 million, which is well worth having. That involvement is one we want to see going forward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether we were giving attention to what I think was a point about the Michael Shields case. He asked it in a slightly oblique way, but I understand the point that was being made. Michael Shields, who is in prison in Bulgaria, is receiving strong consular attention, and I give my assurance that he will continue to get that attention, as will his family.
	I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was very positive about this development, because of her important knowledge of Bulgaria. She is quite right: in the midst of everything, the Bulgarians must revise their judicial system. The new judicial procedure code, passed to improve the efficiency and transparency of the pre-trial phases, is now on the books. There are 12,000 new police investigators—and my word, that is necessary—and the Ministry of Interior Act has been introduced to modernise law enforcement structures. These are all vital measures.
	In my concluding comments, I want to turn to the fundamental part of the exchange—the exchange between many Members of your Lordships' House and the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It is the exchange that I want to have with the noble Lord as well, because it lies at the heart of how we look forward. I admire the depth of the noble Lord's thinking; I have seen it many times in the House and have heard it elsewhere as well. But I wonder whether it has led him to the wrong balance of conclusions. Obviously, I do not accept his argument that this has been a dismal presidency—I could go through a long list of the presidency's achievements, but I will not—but I want to come to the heart of what he said.
	The noble Lord is right that there are significant ambiguities about the direction and character of the EU. These are big debates, as we are all aware. He is quite right to press the arguments about the protection of industries, particularly agriculture, in a way which may have helped their post-war recovery but it does not make much sense in a modern economic setting. I, too, am uncomfortable about the extent and complexity of regulation. I have no differences with him on those points. These characteristics can impede vigour and renewal in European Union markets and in civil society itself. But my overall conclusion is different.
	We live in a continent which was historically renowned for the length, extent and violence of its conflicts. Some great peoples, despite the extraordinary sophistication of their culture, proved in recent history capable of acts of extraordinary barbarism that have come to scar all recorded history. We traded blows with many of them more readily than we traded goods. Even in the past decade and a half we have seen a resurgence of ethnic violence and mass murder in the former Yugoslavia. Yet we have not only created a community that is growing to, and will, I hope, grow well beyond the 25, in which intransigent enemies of world wars and the Cold War now co-operate; we are also a fountainhead of decent values, the spread of democracy and the rule of law. People who saw Europe bathed in its own blood and capable of industrial-scale murder in its gas chambers now look to us as being nations which can give them examples that they can follow in their own finest aspirations. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson also made that point. Those aspiring to join this peaceful and prosperous market strive against the legacies of dictatorship, corruption and lawlessness to gain their place in much better societies and a much better community. That has been the greatest spur to change.
	Has the transition been flawless? Does it provoke occasional heart-searching? Do all the nations of the 25 and beyond approach these questions in exactly the same frame of mind? In this huge market, and among this diversity, of course they do not. But overall, however bumpy that ride, it is one of the most progressive and genuinely entrenched progressive developments that could possibly have been seen against that stark history and background. Who could deny that? New arrangements will be needed—they will be debated hotly, but that fundamental trend is there. It is an achievement of global proportions in my view; it is no cause, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for deep pessimism.
	I know the noble Lord to be a strategic thinker. I invite him to re-evaluate the flow of Europe's history. That is what we are debating in this House, and if we get it wrong, we are more likely to lapse back to what we have tragically experienced than go forward in the ways that have been so encouraging.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Adjournment

Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is now my duty to move the adjournment of the House for the last time this year. It is a pleasant duty, and tradition has it that we take this opportunity to pay tribute to people who have retired during the course of the year and thank the staff of this House for the tremendous service that they give us. I am happy to do that. The House will be excited to hear that as well as me emerging from the shadows to do this, so will my fellow members of the usual channels and the Convenor. We shall then revert to the shadows until this time next year, which suits us fine.
	It is a good time of the year for me. The prospect of a Recess is always a pleasant one for me, and the thought of being reasonably confident that I can go for two and a half weeks without any government defeats enables me to sleep more easily. Before I pay tribute generally to the people who serve us, there are one or two names that I want to mention. I have put them in order of length of service, which I think is fair enough, starting with the longest-serving among those who have retired, or are imminently about to.
	I begin with Priscilla Hungerford, who has given no less than 37 years of service to this House, which is pretty phenomenal. I think it spans six Prime Ministers. She has fulfilled a number of roles, most recently one familiar to the House, that of visits co-ordinator. We all thank her collectively for that incredible length of service.
	The next person I would like to mention is David Jones, the Librarian, who will soon be retiring. In his case, it is after 28 years of service. I am not only thanking him but, on behalf of all of us, acknowledging the incredible service that we get from the Library and its research staff. Many a time I have made a speech, and I am sure this goes for all of us, where, if someone had cried "Author" at the end of it, I would have had to have said "The Library". It provides a wonderful service to all of us. Our very best wishes to David Jones.
	I must mention, as is almost customary on these occasions—especially as they are standing ominously around the Chamber—the Doorkeepers. There are two to salute. One has, in part, been saluted already: John Kirtley, our Principal Doorkeeper who retired a couple of weeks ago. He had given 19 years of service, was held in great affection by this House, I know, and he held the House in great affection. We do indeed wish him a long and happy retirement, and our thanks for all that he has done.
	His colleague, also well known to many of us, Jack Blood, was the deputy Principal Doorkeeper, with, coincidentally, 19 years of service. He retired a little earlier, but I would like that to be recorded in Hansard. Our thanks to him as well. He had service over many years, but it was almost hereditary in his case—appropriately for this House, I suppose—in that his father was the Principal Doorkeeper in the Commons for quite some time. We salute and thank Jack Blood.
	I should also thank the former Editor of Debates. I include our intrepid Hansard writers in our thanks to Jackie Bradshaw, who had 20 years of service, first in the Commons and then here. Just as the librarians and researchers write our speeches, it is the Hansard writers who ensure that they are grammatical, even if they were not when we delivered them. They perform a tremendous function.
	A couple of other names are also worthy of our thanks. I have noticed in the past that we tend to pay tribute to those who are constantly at the forefront of our attention because, obviously, we meet them day in, day out. There are many other people who service the House behind the scenes, however. That is the nature of the job.
	One in particular comes to mind who has given great service. John Rankine is retiring after a relatively short period here but a long period beforehand in the Civil Service. He has played a key role in giving advice on the expansion of the number of staff who serve us. Although this has happened behind the scenes, this has been as extremely important job and we salute the work that he has done.
	There are a couple of other tributes that I would like to pay before I sit down. One is unusual—well, not unusual for me but unusual for me in my role as Chief Whip of this House—in that it is a party political tribute. I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, as it is his principal responsibility. But we should recognise the fact that Celia Thomas will shortly be leaving her present role in the House. She has given tremendous support to the Liberal Benches over many years. Service to a political party is a noble service. It may not be fashionable but service to one particular party is a particularly noble service. My consensual mode will prevent me from mentioning which party that is. No doubt most noble Lords will acknowledge that, whatever bad press we get from time to time, political parties are a vital part of our democracy and a noble calling. We wish Celia a happy retirement—if that is the right word.
	Finally to departments. The one that we must acknowledge has been working under the greatest difficulty and pressure for obvious and good reasons due to the major rebuilding is the refreshment department. How they have continued to serve us with the difficulties that they have experienced in the rebuilding of the kitchens has been phenomenal. Collectively I thank them on behalf of the House.
	Let us conclude by mentioning all the departments of the House. It is a privilege in more ways than one to be able to speak in this Chamber and be a Member of this House, but it becomes a pleasure and a privilege when the people who help, serve, guide and inform us in various ways are always unfailingly helpful and supportive.
	I wish all of them and all noble Lords in the Chamber a very happy Christmas and a splendid New Year.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, your Lordships all know that the usual channels work very closely together and occasionally we are seen to work closely together. This is one such occasion.
	I am delighted to support the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms in thanking all the staff of the House. We have a splendid staff. We are very well served by all of them. Beneath the patina and polish of the public face of the House of Lords, there is an amazingly efficient and surprisingly modern set of systems and staff working for us. That is nowhere better demonstrated than in the changes that have taken place in the Library during the time that David Jones has been Librarian. He has been Librarian for 15 years, though he worked in the Library previously as assistant Librarian. During this time the Library has "gone electronic". The changes are startling to those of us who have been in this building for some time. All libraries—but particularly our Library here—have changed with the introduction of computers and electronic records. He has overseen that work extremely well here and had a distinguished time in doing so.
	Other changes have affected Hansard in recent years. Jackie Bradshaw has been Editor of Debates, as has been mentioned. The great rise in Grand Committees doubles the work of Hansard for large parts of the day. The Grand Committee is still sitting now and will still be sitting after the Chamber has risen. Changes of that sort have taken place and Jackie Bradshaw has been at the forefront of those in her department.
	John Rankine has been mentioned in connection with advising on staff and so on. He also had to help us to deal with all kinds of changed regulations, and to ensure that we used our staff to best effect and that they are looked after.
	The most long-serving of those mentioned is Priscilla Hungerford. We have seen her not only in her official duties in the House but quite often in her voluntary duty as one of the stewards of the Abbey, helping to sort us all out when we go to parliamentary occasions at St Margaret's, Westminster. I hope that we shall continue to see her in that capacity and I pay tribute to her role.
	More obvious, as the noble Lord mentioned, are John Kirtley and the other doorkeepers. John Kirtley was the Principal Doorkeeper and did a first-class job. Jack Blood, who retired in October, was a regimental sergeant major in the Coldstream Guards. During my national service I was subject to the ministrations—if that is the right word—of regimental sergeant majors in the Coldstream Guards. I have to say they were not quite the same. One did not get quite the same view of them as we do here, where they serve us extremely well. Jack Blood's ancestor came to some prominence at the Tower of London in the time of King Charles II, but perhaps we ought to draw a veil over that for the moment.
	But, as the noble Lord hinted, many other people serve us in all capacities—the Clerks, Hansard, Black Rod's Department and the Works Department. Sometimes we are in danger of tripping over things because of the work which is being done. It is a very difficult building to look after, improve and modernise, which members of the Works Department do all the time, helped of course by the cleaners and so on.
	The Refreshment Department has already been especially mentioned. Its members have had a very difficult year but have served us well. I pay tribute to the staff of the Computer Office, the Library, the Record Office and the staff of our own Whips Offices, too. Celia Thomas was particularly mentioned and I support what was said about her. Like members of the usual channels, who you see in evidence today, they also work closely together in the interests of the House, as do all the people I have mentioned.
	So, on behalf of Her Majesty's Official Opposition in the House of Lords, I am delighted to support everything that has been said and to thank our staff. I wish them a happy Christmas and I wish all of us a very good 2006.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, 33 years ago I spoke at a dinner where I was the eleventh of 11 speakers. Had it been a cricket team, I hope they might have said there was depth in the batting. Being third is perhaps a better position to be in than eleventh, but certain things have been said and we can be repetitive. Perhaps it is right that we should be. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Cope, for what they have said and I support them. On behalf of the Liberal Democrat Peers I thank those who are retiring. In a sense, by naming David Jones, John Kirtley, Jack Blood, Jackie Bradshaw, John Rankine and Priscilla Hungerford, we are naming representatives of those who are still serving; those who have retired but also those who are still serving.
	As has been indicated, it is appropriate for me to refer to the service of Celia Thomas. Twenty-eight years ago she was appointed as the lone helper of the Liberal Peers at that time. I met her on the first occasion at a Liberal conference. I have come across her words as written in the Liberal News and the Liberal Democrat News over the years. It is not the most widely read of publications—other publications are perhaps more so—but it has been a very important job for Celia because, to do that work, she had to have a total feel of what was in Hansard and what was going on in the House. It has been an important thing for her to do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Graham, wrote a little book not too long ago in which he referred to some of the exploits in which Celia had been involved. There is a sense in which Celia, after 28 years, knows where some of the bodies are buried. She has become an expert in the procedure of this House and has given tremendous guidance to the inexperienced, and indeed the experienced, of my colleagues. We certainly wish her well in the future. She intends to retire from her present role here at the end of January or in early February. We will then see what the future holds for her.
	In thanking those who retire, we thank also those who continue. It is important to thank the hidden people, those whom we do not see too much but who are doing really solid work for us all here. We thank the hidden people. We thank in particular the staff of the Refreshment Department, who have had to toil with some real difficulty during the past few months while work has been going on in the kitchens.
	I thank also those on my own Benches who have had to put up with me in this role for the past seven months—having had to go into the shadows just liking now and again to see the sunshine. In thanking all the people who make this place work, I wish you all a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, another year has gone by in which the Cross-Benchers have nothing but praise for the service provided for us by the staff of the House. It is a pleasure as Convenor formally to express our appreciation of their work, their efficiency, their good humour and their service to us. I refer this year, as others have done, to the staff of the Refreshment Department in particular. Meals continually appear, although often in different places from where they used to appear. They are very good none the less.
	My principal purpose today, like that of others, is to express our appreciation to all the staff who will continue to serve us here for many years yet, but it is appropriate to mention some stars who have recently retired or will very shortly be leaving us. John Kirtley, the Principal Doorkeeper, held his leaving party at the same time as the Cross-Bench party, so I did not have the opportunity then to thank him personally for his 19 years' service, but I gladly do that now. I thank also Jack Blood, who left a little earlier in the autumn. He also served 19 years. Those are great records of long service.
	David Jones, who I am glad to say was at the Cross-Bench party, is leaving us in January. We all know how much we have depended on the Library under his leadership and how in the period since he joined us the Library has continuously expanded, improved and become increasingly electronic. It is now more than a few bookshelves ahead of me as it becomes more and more electronic.
	Among others whom I should recall are two members of staff who had particularly harassing jobs. They were Jackie Bradshaw as Editor of Debates, and Priscilla Hungerford, who, as most of us know, had the problem of trying to fit visits and meetings into spaces in the diary which were practically non-existent, but she did it very well.
	Finally, I mention John Rankine, the Staff Adviser, who joined us after many years in the internal management consulting team in the Cabinet Office. I feel especially entitled to refer to him, because he internally managed me in the Cabinet Office. I see him, as it were, from both sides. He did his job very well because I am still here and in good spirits, and the staff of the House are also here and in excellent spirits. So I thank all those who have served us during the year.

House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past five o'clock.
	Tuesday, 20 December 2005.